Fitzroyalty

Hyperlocal news about Melbourne's first suburb: Fitzroy 3065

City of Yarra admits food trucks are trading without permission on private property in Fitzroy

14 May 2013 | 0 comments

The consultation period for people to comment on the new draft rules for food trucks in Yarra has closed. The City of Yarra website article on the issue has not been updated with details on which forthcoming meeting will have the issue on its agenda, so the issue has an indefinite future. If you need a refresher on the issue read my April post.

First, the council staffer collecting the submissions replied to my emailed submission by denying any knowledge of the submission I made to council in person at the March meeting (as documented in my April post). So whichever bureautard pretends to take the minutes at the meetings evidently did not pass them on to this guy, or he didn’t read them. My name is recorded as having made a submission in the minutes of the March meeting (332kb pdf).

Second, he claims that the information in their documentation about permit applicants being required to show evidence of residency in the City of Yarra relates to a discount on the application fee. I believe this is an outright lie, as the documents make no mention of a discount and clearly state that residency is required to apply.

As I documented in my April post, the Council Executive Manager – Governance publicly agreed with my verbal submission at the March council meeting that the residency requirement was irrelevant and should be removed from the documentation. The bureautard claims that he has not been instructed to remove it. This is untrue as his superior had previously publicly stated that it would be done.

Finally, he claims that food trucks operating from private land would require a planning permit (presumably for the use of the land) separate to needing a food truck registration (from the state government Health Department). This has not appeared in any version of the documentation to date.

Significantly, he acknowledges that the food trucks currently operating from private property are doing so unlawfully: ‘Those vehicles operating on Private property without a permit are not operating within the rules.’ Given that I have just demonstrated that the council has not made this requirement clear in any of its documentation, how can it expect truck operators to meet it?

Read more →

Darryl Adams vs Melinda Tankard Reist: harassed at work for personal behaviour online

10 May 2013 | 0 comments

A man used a pseudonymous Twitter account to make a sexist comment about a woman. The woman took offence. She knew his real name. She presumably could do little to obtain a retraction or apology from him, and was dissatisfied with this. She also knew who his employer was, so she contacted them and asked them to harass him for her, and they appear to have complied.

Regardless of the tastelessness of his actions, her behaviour cannot be justified. His behaviour was representative of his individual values, and presumably was undertaken in his own time using his own resources. It had nothing to do with his employer or his professional competence.

It was therefore none of his employer’s business, and they should have said so to the woman, but they appear to have done the opposite. They investigated him on spurious grounds. The man confirms that his behaviour has been investigated by his employer and that he cannot comment on the process or the outcome.

The man is federal public servant Darryl Adams, who works for the Australian Taxation Office. The woman is Melinda Tankard Reist, an anti-abortion activist. The wording of the tweet, reproduced in The Australian newspaper, was ‘So, has anyone found naked pictures of #mtr (Tankard Reist)? She is rootable in that religious feminist way.’

Read more →

Woolworths Fitzroy breaches Australian consumer law by refusing to offer a refund for faulty goods

8 May 2013 | 3 Comments

Some time ago, perhaps a year or a bit more, I bought 4 Woolworths ‘essentials’ brand AAA 800mAh NiMH rechargeable batteries, made in China, from Woolworths on Smith St in Fitzroy. They recently failed to charge and are dead.

NiMH rechargeable batteries are supposed to be capable of dozens, if not hundreds, of recharge cycles, and should have a life of several years. I would have recharged these batteries only about 5 or 6 times. They can be reasonably considered to be faulty and unfit for purpose. I therefore qualify for a refund.

I did not have proof of purchase in the form of a receipt, but this is not required and does not undermine my entitlement to a refund. Moreover, the product was clearly a Woolworths house brand. I obviously bought them from Woolworths.

social issues smith st fitzroy customer service business

Read more →