3 ms·
I didn't see anything in that article talking about exploiting or undermining local laws. In fact the whole article talked about outrage at local politicians.
by darkarmani 13y ago
I didn't see anything in that article talking about exploiting or undermining local laws. In fact the whole article talked about outrage at local politicians.
Not to say they don't, but the admirable qualities about the McDonald's corporation is that they are hyper-rational about business efficiency and public image. I don't see anything in the article illustrating that they were acting in a dirty manner.
- lostlogin 13y agoSorry, not the best link to illustrate the situation, it runs over many years. They were denied the right to build there, so they applied for something that would have minimal impact, got it accepted. Then applied for something else, with slightly more impact, got it accepted. Every step was careful, measured and calculated to go unnoticed by locals. Eventually they turned and said, well hey, if I can build X surely Y (McDonalds) will be fine. There is also a history of McDonald's not abiding by their council consents (not collecting rubbish generated, opening for longer than agreed to, noise violations etc), but they can afford the fines. Nothing illegal was done in this instance, they just managed to bypass local feeling and played a perfect game. Key takaway I guess, is that out of 872 submissions to the council regarding the plans, 860 were opposed to it. completely. http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/editorial-the-battle-of-balmoral-matters-to-your-n/1007584/ http://www.theaucklander.co.nz/news/editorial-the-battle-of-...
- darkarmani 13y agoWow. That is a crazy story.