Trading Distance for Food Trucks

over 4 years ago
There is currently a range of views on increasing the distance from 25 metres (similar food business) to 50 metres (any food business) What ideas do you have to help Council find a solution that meets the needs of everyone?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

  • Dimi almost 5 years ago
    I can see that there are many voices raising that there shouldn’t be any restrictions or hurdle on the operation of food trucks. But I am not too sure whether they actually know the reality of food businesses that are getting affected by the food trucks. Many people may say that it gives vibrancy or let people try new stuff but if you put yourself in the position of other food business owners who owns the business in brick and mortar stores, you wouldn’t be able to say about abolishing any restrictions on food truck.

    I work in Adelaide CBD so I see food trucks every week and whenever the food trucks operates I see that there are significantly less people in the restaurant or fixed food business and I thought it would be ridiculous if I put myself into that position. I also think the proposed fee should be increased because (I might be wrong but) I heard from the people who has friends owns the food truck that they don’t claim much tax on their income as there is no proof for tax office to find out how much they are making. Based on the fact that most food trucks are operated on cash basis, I see the possibility and I heard that food trucks are making decent average income compared to fixed food businesses with very low outgoings. I also see many negatives caused by food trucks such as disposal of waste in connection to fuel gas with non-compliance of regulations and non-purpose built use of decrepit caravans etc.

    I just think this is not fair. There are many good reasons for the council to allow the food trucks but I think there are more important reasons for the council to protect the fixed businesses.

    I am not too sure what will be best solution in terms of fees and trading distances for food truck but I am pretty sure that the current proposal will not have much impact on food truck compared to the difficulties that the fixed businesses suffers due to food trucks.
  • OB almost 5 years ago
    The proposed fee, zones and trading distances for MFVs will not solve the current issue. The issue is, what the council should do in order to have the vibrancy of Adelaide at the same time ensure that the fixed businesses have least effect on their business operation. MFVs are affecting the fixed businesses’ operation as the MFVs bring competition against fixed businesses which lead to decrease in their sale. I think most fixed businesses are already going through the difficult situations due to downturn in economy and other circumstantial reasons so I think they should be protected by council’s policy. Apart from MFVs, fixed businesses are also affected by other festivals and events in Adelaide (i.e. Fringe, Royal Croquet Club and Royal Adelaide Show). South Australia is festival state and various events should held but the council should also act on the best interest of fixed businesses and find a way to results a win-win situation between fixed businesses and MFVs. For that reason, I agree with the suggestion made by DJL in limiting the MFVs to trade once a week and I think MFVs should be highly promoted only during the festivals seasons. I think the current proposal on fees and trading distances will not have much effect unless there is increase in proposed fees and trading distances.
  • DJL almost 5 years ago
    I am not too sure about council’s policy on MFVs. To me personally, it feels like it is highly concentrated on MFVs benefits. I know that the MFV has started as part of Splash Adelaide with an aim to increase the vibrancy of Adelaide which is good thing. We need vibrancy and this is one of good way to allow people to have something different however I think it should be limited to participate only in parklands or other specific events. The other alternative is allowing the MFV to operate once a week in designated area. I think this policy doesn’t consider about fixed businesses’ situation, current economy is terrible with constant increase in unemployment rate and this MFV is taking an advantage against fixed business. There are competition directly in front of bricks and mortar stores at the peak time and they are paying far less of rates and permit fees compared to fixed businesses. The council’s proposed on new distance and new zoning is meaningless as this doesn’t affect MFVs and it will just keep the competition ongoing with fixed business.
  • wiener almost 5 years ago
    The council should open up parking spaces to less than 1 hour parks, to areas with greater foot traffic while still applying the distance restrictions to permanent businesses. Tightening restriction to the existing permits will cripple the mobile businesses making it even more difficult than it already is. There is definitely a consumer demand for the food vans just not on the outskirts of the city where business is not financially viable for vendors.
  • strongman almost 5 years ago
    I believe there are better ways to both increase revenue from MFV's and at the same time making it easier on a MFV's cash flow be it whoever they are. If you were to say keep the new zoning and map out designated areas with appropriate alloted parking spaces set aside for MFV's only you could then charge a daily rate for MFV to trade in each location.

    This may range from $10 - $50 per day a considerable increase, it could also be broken down into time slots eg morning, lunch, dinner, Late trade for example. It would then be up to the MFV to book a location online possibly for a particular day and pay in advance for that shifts trade.

    It then falls back onto the MFV whether they make an income at that location or not. This may also allow for scaleability of the program based around locations, it should put an end to the bickering from fixed vs mobile business and would become a part of the Adelaide scene.

    I believe you could then increase the number of MFV considerably offering greater variety and hopefully over time with the constant massaging of locations, pricing, vendors etc the mix and values of sites will work themselves out.

    Currently most MFV's are used to paying a fee for a location which provides them with a return which is greater than what they pay. If they pay and do not see a return there they don't return to the location if they make a loss but can see potential they will persist with a location.

    The system may be designed so that a MFV could trade at the same location as often as they like so long as no one else of the same food category has booked that location, if someone else of the same food category chooses to book that location they will slot in automatically over riding the vendor whom previously traded there within the last 24 hrs or had booked the location for consecutive days. Different algorithms could apply and just about any programmer would be able to include this into a database or piece of software like an app.

    You should also find that you could automatically exclude particular food vendors from trading at certain sites if they could not co exist with current fixed business vendors. I also see this as giving council full control over where MFVs can trade and also allows council to investigate and revitilize whichever part of the city it sees fit and demand the correct fees for that zone.

    As if its always full means it is good trade therefore commands a higher price if it always empty then its free or very cheap to entice MFVs there or the council could investigate moving the location.

    And just a reminder to those whom believe that MFVs do not incur charges similar to fixed business, Let me say you are wrong.

    A number of Mobile Food Vendors pay to house their vehicles as they cannot do so where they live. eg rent same as a fixed business, they also pay the licence fees, they pay fees to be at events, they incur fees for waste removal a water supply just like a fixed business, they pay taxes the same as a fixed business incur fees such as insurance for product and personal liability, Their fuel costs would exceed the cost of electricity supply to a fixed business,however they also pay electricity on their fridges whilst they are housed they pay registration for their vehicles.

    They may not get their products delivered to their door such as a fixed business therefore meaning they have to do the running around for it at an extra cost. They are not supplied with the comforts of four walls and a roof with toilets air conditioned comfort, security systems and a regular position to ply their trade everyday therefore ruling out goodwill and loyalty.

    They are not located at the base of a building 24/7 which houses 5000 + or more workers. These are some of reasons you pay for with a fixed business. MFVs are startups which have allowed people to either enter into business or transition into a new community. They would all have the ambition to be successful of which they deserve if not for simply giving it a go.

    Fixed businesses were offered the opportunity to engage the MFV pilot program before anyone else and chose not to do so. It has only come with the success of the program that they now either want to destroy it or join in on it. This is after all these MFVs put their money and time into building this program and making it a success. Of which even they could not have done so without the support of the South Australian community.
  • mshagg almost 5 years ago
    Is there really that diverse a range of views being expressed? It seems there are really two positions to hold - support of the status quo or support for the proposed change.

    As I discussed in some detail in my initial submission, which I wont repeat ad nauseum here, the ACC has not put forward a compelling case in support of the proposed change. Your own analysis put the entire fleet of MFVs at 0.15% of the total market, yet we're supposed to believe they spell the death knoll for established fixed food businesses. This discussion topic is predicated on balancing the needs of everyone, but no need for the proposed change has been demonstrated.

    As I also highlighted in my submission, the increased vibrancy and visitation of the areas where MFVs are operating represent an opportunity for FFBs. There are dozens of people visiting these areas because of MFVs - each one of them represents a potential customer for an FFB. I should think FFBs would welcome this.

    Personally it's not 25m, 50m, 30m, or whatever arbitrary distance you wish to suggest that concerns me - it's the impact of an exclusion zone which completely prevents MFVs from operating in key sites - the southern quadrants of Hindmarsh Square, Currie St and Angus St. If council wants to ban MFVs from those specific areas, just come out and say it - dont blame it on a tape measure or an overly-complicated system of zones and categories.

    With all due respect, because I do appreciate the opportunity to contribute, it appears as if this discussion is merely looking for a way to overcome an overwhelming amount of feedback which has been received against the proposed changes. You asked us and we told you - if you are going to disregard that feedback then take ownership of that decision - and the criticism you can fairly expect for doing so.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Kirsten at ACC almost 5 years ago
      Hi Mshagg,

      Thanks for your comments.

      I want to reassure you that we are taking on all the feedback, submission forms and comments and analysing them to ensure the public consultation results are reported to Council. So all feedback, will be counted as it is all very important.

      We opened these discussions forums so people could have the opportunity to raise an interesting point/idea and to encourage people with different views to chat amongst each other. Additionally you have myself and Kim @ ACC here to answer any queries or questions that arise.

      Hide reply (1)
      • mshagg almost 5 years ago
        Hi Kirsten. Thanks for your follow up comment, much appreciated. Apologies if I came across as dismissive.

        FWIW Im really impressed with the degree of consultation being undertaken. The ACC obviously recognises how important the MFV program is in the eyes of the community. Food trucks have become a part of the culture of the CBD in the short time they have been operating. As I think i've been pretty clear on, i think the financial impact is negligible but the impact on the city's culture and vibrancy has been significant. It's such a success story and something the ACC should wear with pride. In my opinion anyway :)
    • Fork on the Road almost 5 years ago
      mshagg there is another 3rd options and that would be to put in place a program that actually grows Adelaide's food truck culture (like portland and austin) such that it is significant job creator and also a tourist attractor but more importantly sets up a program where mobile is encouraged and embraced and nurtured and thus providing more genuine opportunities for more to make the transition to fixed (can't see anything in the current revision that aids and assists in the transition right now)
  • The Adelaide Show almost 5 years ago
    To me, this particular proposal is a cowardly retreat. As George Inglis mentioned in our interview on The Adelaide Show Podcast this week, Adelaide does have a cyclical history of getting all forward looking, then checking itself and taking a step or two backwards; inching forward over time. But be that as it may, we have the choice of letting council take the LAZY option of just regulating food trucks out of sight OR urging council to show some decency and creativity and use its resources (and those of creative power houses in this city) to provide support to brick and mortar establishments to take a deep breath, honestly review what they are serving up (and how), and show some Aussie resilience in ringing in some changes to 'win the fight'. Our city will go nowhere other than backwards if we allow conservative 'dead weights' to, at best, block vibrant innovators, or at worst, kowtow to large property owners who might have curried favour to bolster prospects for their lease holders and rent payers.
    Come on, Adelaide. Queen Adelaide was known as someone who was humble, made ends meet, and stood for doing the right things. This punitive 50m rule basically urinates on her legacy and if there are no bundles of grey matter within council able to seek a proactive, positive solution, then tap some of us on the shoulder so we can lead the way.
    PS I have no shares or interests in any food trucks other than a passion for pursuing interesting food combinations and supporting gutsy individuals who actually want to have a go at making their city a better place!
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Kirsten at ACC almost 5 years ago
      Hi The Adelaide Show,

      Thanks for your comments!

      I've just found the podcast link, so if anyone is interested in having a listen this can be found here:

      Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts on this podcast and what was brought up during the show.

      Hide reply (1)
      • The Adelaide Show almost 5 years ago
        Thanks, Kristen. I'm really impressed by the work you and Kim are doing in giving us a chance to air our thoughts. And digging out the link to our podcast is a fairly public demonstration of trying not to leave any stones unturned. Thank you. Steve.
  • nicktyschnick almost 5 years ago
    As long as the food trucks don't physically block other businesses this anti-competition distance is irrelevant. There is nothing to stop an international fast-food giant leasing the property right next door to your B&M business - perhaps ask Caparezza in James Pl what they think - and putting this imaginary "level playing field" in perspective.
    McDonalds had a purpose-built lunchbox-style restaurant set up in Rundle Mall and gave away FREE lunches for 3 days (as part of a national tour going to other capital cities at a cost which would have to have exceeded a year's turnover for most small businesses) and that's seen as fine... so let's over-regulate the demands on the tiniest of independent entrepreneurs to create a "level playing field"?
  • Wayno almost 5 years ago
    Councils proposed MFV changes are depressing. Regardless of the change specifics, Council is sending a strong message to South Australians that vibrancy in their lives is less important that protectionist policy for existing businesses. Council is also sending a message interstate and overseas that we're not progressive nor open for business. What is Council doing to help reverse the young person brain drain? We still lose 5000 people to net migration interstate each and every year.

    As others have said, all business must evolve. You can't create success by legislating against competition. The only things stopping existing bricks and mortar businesses from being attractive and competitive is their own laziness, and over pandering by the council.

    This is all quite shocking actually. Same for the Royal Croquet Club topic. It is a fallacy that established businesses (pubs/restaurants) are being hurt by the RCC - I bet if you interviewed RCC attendees that most 'would not' have visited a pub or restaurant (in the city or elsewhere) if the RCC did not exist. Why go sit inside a dark, stoic, characterless place when it's a sunny day or balmy evening?

    Council should be encouraging MORE competition and MORE vibrancy. Not looking for ways to limit and trickle feed vibrancy so people remain marginally interested.

    (I am a city resident, and office worker, not with any business or the council itself).
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Frank almost 5 years ago
      I agree that the RCC should remain in the square or the city, it is a great bar to go to, however MFV is a completely different discussion. We are not discussing the Fringe or RCC here. Existing businesses have another debate on their hands with those two topics.

      For the purpose of this forum we need to keep on the topic, which really is rent payers in the CBD against non rent payers (or very litle). Wayne you have twice mentioned this isn't the case. For clarity for the forum, please explain what this actually is about then and what has sparked the council to conduct this one eyed forum and servey?

      if anyone owned a bricks and mortar business or a MFV business in the city you would understand the truth to this debate. Wherever the public reside in the CBD, I would imagine they have great choices of food around them.

      However, I am surprised at some individuals passion for this forum, considering it has hardly any impact on themselves.
      Hide reply (1)
      • mshagg almost 5 years ago
        Hi Frank. I too am a CBD resident (therefore a contributor to ACC revenues and a voter in local government elections). I take issue with the proposals because the MFV program has demonstrably improved vibrancy and visitation which, if you look, was precisely the stated goal of the program.

        There is also the issue that the ACC is in the privileged position of being the custodians of the State's capital and, as such, their decisions have an effect of all South Australians. You should not be surprised at people's passion - Adelaide is a great city and we all want it to move forward.

        There are many more stakeholders to consider besides the MFV and fixed food businesses. The ACC clearly recognises this due to their willingness to consult with the general public. Were that not the case, this whole issue would be resolved behind closed doors between MFVs and fixed food businesses.
    • StartUpFuturist almost 5 years ago
      I'm experiencing a serious case of Deja Vu!!

      Wayno your words are those echoed strongly by the former Lord Mayor so much so im confident some of the comments above are paraphrased. However his name wasn't Wayno? I assume you must of been a strong advocate of his at the time he was in power.

      Whats your opinion on the bike lane and Frome Rd development?

      RCC is not a festival its the largest open air bar in the southern hemisphere. I love it and i am all in favour of the event. It creates vibrancy in a space that draws many people outside the peak lunch trade that MFV occupy.

      Also i take offense to your speculation about established businesses not being hurt by RCC or MFV! This is unintelligent. Of course they are being hurt! RCC generated circa 8M dollars in revenue it came from somewhere? I know i spent money there that i would have spent elsewhere had they not been there.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Kim H almost 5 years ago
        Hi guys,

        It’s great to see that you’re passionate about your City and have a wide range of opinions on other Council activities. As Frank mentioned we need to keep to the topic of this forum which is discussing the trading distance .

        You can send your other comments through to the Customer Centre ( who will forwarded those to the relevant staff member.

        Kim @ ACC
  • Hamish almost 5 years ago
    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.
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Glen almost 5 years ago
      The 50 metre distance is ridiculous burdening regulation that would make our city seem like a laughing stock of progress and vibrancy.

      I agree, there should be no restrictions at all on distance to a fixed bricks and mortar business. MFV are already limited by size, weather, stock, trading hours etc.
    • caitsith01 almost 5 years ago
      Totally agree Hamish. Especially with this:

      "The public does not owe the established venues a living"

      These venues have many advantages such as shelter, heating and cooling, toilets, proper kitchens, more staff, etc etc. Yet they apparently cannot attract customers away from food trucks. Yet when one looks at certain permanent locations, like the new bagel place in Topham Mall, there are queues out the door every day.

      The real issue that established businesses have is with their landlords. They are paying huge rent at a time when the commercial real estate market is flat and the economy overall is struggling. That is not the fault of food trucks or their (many) patrons, and the rest of us should not be punished because certain businesses are struggling.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • marcus almost 5 years ago
        They may not owe them anything; however by the same logic, why do they owe the food trucks anything? Why are the food trucks getting special privileges? If my local cafe I eat at every day goes out of business cause the street gets saturated once a week (20% of the week) then I am going to be rightly pissed off.
      • mshagg almost 5 years ago
        Personally I don't have a problem with the ACC looking after the interests of established businesses. They are answerable to these businesses at local government elections.

        However, no one has demonstrated that MFVs are damaging fixed food businesses to the extent that they need protecting. The total annual impact of the MFV program is $600k. This is significant for those making a living from the food trucks, but in the context of the $403 million market in which they operate, the amount is insignificant. If a fixed food business is threatened by a 0.15% reduction in revenue, they have bigger problems than competition from food trucks.
    • carol almost 5 years ago
      I totally agree with Hamish.

      People don’t only visit food trucks because they happen to be placed in their path – whenever I visit one I specifically go out of my way to get there. I had never visited Hindmarsh Square for lunch prior to there being food trucks, so any bricks and mortar businesses in the area never would have had my business in the first place.

      I have no problems walking an extra 25m to get to a truck (and I’m sure I’m not alone), so the difference between 25 or 50m does not matter at all in that sense. The increased distance proposal really seems to be aimed at pushing food trucks out entirely as it severely limits the available spaces in some cases. In cases such as Hindmarsh Square and Angas Street 50m may as well be 1km as the 50m rule would mean few or no spaces to park in those areas.

      This is limiting to food trucks and taking away choice for customers.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Wayno almost 5 years ago
        Well said Carol. your comment hits the nail on the head: "I have no problems walking an extra 25m to get to a truck (and I’m sure I’m not alone), so the difference between 25 or 50m does not matter at all in that sense"

        If anything, the proposed 50m rule will simply make people dislike the council for instituting a silly rule that makes them walk twice as far.
      • Llessur almost 5 years ago
        "I had never visited Hindmarsh Square for lunch prior to there being food trucks, so any bricks and mortar businesses in the area never would have had my business in the first place."

        Completely agree with this. I think this is the case for many people who frequent food trucks. Take them away (which is essentially what the proposed changes will do) and I'll just go back to bringing sandwiches to work in the summer. Seems like a lose-lose situation to me.
  • dv almost 5 years ago
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Kirsten at ACC almost 5 years ago
      Thanks for sharing this Dv!

      A very interesting article. What are everyone else's thoughts on this?
    • Wayno almost 5 years ago
      A well argued article. There's been much noise about the adverse impact on existing businesses, but where's the hard evidence? and quite frankly - so what if the hard evidence exists? people are voting with their feet and taste buds.
      Hide reply (1)
      • mshagg almost 5 years ago
        The ACC identified the impact in the report issued by the Economic & Community Development Committee. The total market impact of MFVs was assessed as $600k pa, or 0.15% of the $403 million market. This is an average $424 per "trade" (i.e. per day) for each MFV.

        i.e. it is such a small amount it falls within the kind of statistical variance one might expect to see from year to year.
  • Fork on the Road almost 5 years ago
    Not sure exactly why the forum is limited to two specific questions (maybe more can be added), so will post my more general thought here anyway as a start, where is the discussion about the Objectives of the program, which seem be missing any mention of developing a 'Food Truck program that is the best in the country' or 'a thriving, job-creating, innovative and exciting food truck program that enhances the great food culture of Adelaide and South Australia', the ambition for the program itself seems to be absent and hidden behind other objectives around vibrancy, place-making, transition to fixed and fixed getting the chance to trial mobile.

    Anyhow, for those looking for an interesting easy read, the story of food trucks has been illustrated by an amazing local artist Elaine Cheng - you can see it here -

    The City Mag has also written about it here -
    Hide Replies (2)
    • mshagg almost 5 years ago
      I agree that less restrictive framing of the discussion would be beneficial.
    • Kirsten at ACC almost 5 years ago
      Thanks for sharing these, Fork On the Road!

  • caitsith01 almost 5 years ago
    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?

    The reasons that people choose to eat at food trucks have nothing to do with their precise location and everything to do with them offering interesting choices at good prices. Not only should the distance not be increased at all, it should be removed altogether. If people with the existing advantages of a 'bricks and mortar' cafe or restaurant can't compete with a couple of people in a van or caravan selling hamburgers, then tinkering with distances isn't going to (and shouldn't) save them.

    I find it ironic that a 'pro-business' mayor and council are seeking to impose planned economy type restrictions like large minimum distances on food vendors.

    Furthermore, much of the area covered by a 50m exclusion zone is effectively public land and shared community space. Why is it justified to limit the use of that space to benefit a few private businesses? Especially when many members of the community want the space to be used by food trucks? After all, the whole (supposed) "problem" is that the trucks are very popular with ordinary people.

    The starting position should be that, as far as possible, people are free to open businesses and people are free to choose which businesses they support. The Council should therefore not reduce the "zones" in question, but should let the market sort this out. The only reasonable limitations should be for safety or liquor licensing reasons and to ensure that communal space is shared and not dominated by any one group.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Dad01 almost 5 years ago
      If it was a level playing field I would agree 100% with you but to be fair the Physical established businesses pay significant costs to have their physical business established (rent/taxes) that pop ups don't have to. Given that, the cost to produce exactly the same product as the pop up has to be more expensive per unit. Given that, I agree that there needs to be some regulation so as to support (or protect) established business who pay these taxes/rents/rates. The only way around that is for these businesses to co-exist because they serve different types of food and offer different experiences to each other. I am not one, but if I was an owner of a business serving XX food and paying rent/rates/taxes to do so, I'd be pretty crapped off if someone came along and set up a tent next to my business selling the same food heaps cheaper and didn't have to pay the same taxes/rates that I did. I wouldn't want to pay my rates to the council because they did nothing to protect me. Bottom line if I think 25m zone is fine and some monitoring of the types of food would be good (pretty subjective though).
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Dad01 almost 5 years ago
        correction - it costs MORE per unit of exactly the same food to be produced in an established physical business that it ever would in a pop up due to the additional rents/rates/taxes a physical business needs to pay. Sorry about that everyone.
      • cranj001 almost 5 years ago
        I agree that 25m is fine, if any restriction at all. Fixed businesses should also have some distinct advantages over food trucks in terms of their ability to offer better quality products and offer customers more comforts. A coffee van could pull up right outside my local coffee shop on Gilbert St and charge 50c less for a coffee but I still wouldn't service them, as I know the coffee will be nowhere near as good!
      • mshagg almost 5 years ago
        The playing field doesn't have to be "level" - they're playing different games. Yes, it's unquestionable that a fixed food business has higher overheads than an MFV... but they also have a building, tables, chairs, a kitchen, signage, possibly a liquor license. They also have a council which relentlessly pursues their interests, be it protecting on-street car parking at the expense of alternative infrastructure or creating barriers to entry for potential competitors.
  • Frank almost 5 years ago
    Not sure why anyone is concerned with the distance, who polices it anyway? If you like it, you will walk there. This is clearly a debate for bricks and mortar business and MFV. I find it hard to believe that members of the general public would take the time to log in, create an account, which is a long-winded process, then read and comment on the local caravan that parks down the street, when they feel like it.

    If this is the case, you clearly have too much time on your hands. Lets all be honest and stop messing around, this is a debate between rent payers and those who don’t pay rent, or very little. The council is receiving flack everyday from rent payers.

    The council should activate the areas of our city when they need it, not at lunch time, Adelaide is spoilt by choice and if this state is to endeavour into a future with a sustainable approach, far more regulation needs to put on this, eg food safety.

    The council should be supporting the local business and identifying gaps in the economy to fill. Adelaide probably has more bars, restaurants and eateries per capita than anywhere in Australia. Want to talk about sustainability, then invest where it is required, not in an industry where it is saturated.

    How many food trucks have become permanent bricks and mortar businesses?

    When do MFV travel out of Adelaide to service the suburbs?
    Hide reply (1)
    • Wayno almost 5 years ago
      No. It's not a debate between rent payers. Also no - it's not councils job to identify and fill market gaps. Instead government needs to set a loose framework and step back; let private industry innovate and create competition.

      Simply can't believe what you're advocating.

      I do agree there's probably too many similar bars, restaurants and eateries, and guess what! they're not what the public wants. Who's right and who's wrong? The customer is always right.
  • StartUpFuturist almost 5 years ago
    I recently discovered that CPI increases for a bricks and mortar business are often more than the fees paid by a food vendor to operate a full year.

    Freedom of choice is the real issue here. We live in a very entitled generation and people forget the big picture. Change is inevitable, the hospitality industry has endured a great deal of change in Adelaide all in the name of "vibrancy". Policy makers didn't think this through when making decisions and only now are wee seeing the impact with businesses being liquidated, people losing their jobs, employers losing their homes and lively hoods and all this adds to our already burdened public system and critical levels of unemployment.

    Keep in mind we are all fully aware that every business needs to evolve however it is very difficult to change quickly if you are established and set in your way. You need time to evolve and often you are trying to change someones dream and vision which can be disheartening for some operators. So when i read comments such as who cares about bricks and motor business, i want choice, I'm entitled and i don't care, i quickly realise we are heading for more pain because our community is selfish and inconsiderate.

    The first rights should always be the brick and mortar business, without them we would have no vibrancy at all, no choice and no jobs. Food vendors can operate ad hock when they please. How many do you see out and about on non peak days and time? I don't see any at night time in the city squares and i live in the city? If its vibrancy we want then make them trade at night and on non peak days and times. However they mainly trade on Thursday and Friday lunch in high density spots. These are also the main trading days for lunch businesses in the city. So is this fair trade or simply consumer convenience and an oversupply of choice?

    Therefore to me the distance of a mobile food vendor isn't really relevant. What really needs to be discussed is what is ACC doing to support the existing bricks and mortar businesses so they can co exists with mobile food vendors.

    Everyone should be able to trade fairly and equitably.
  • Kirsten at ACC almost 5 years ago
    Hi everyone!

    Thanks for all your comments so far! Please continue to voice your suggestions and ideas, or any questions you have, that will help us find a balanced solution to the trading distance of Mobile Food Vendors to fixed businesses

    I’d like to introduce myself and Kim @ ACC who will be facilitating this forum, and will try our best to answer any questions about the Mobile Food Vending program and the proposed changes.

  • Moe almost 5 years ago
    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.
  • Dad01 almost 5 years ago
    Accept that you are not going to keep everyone happy. Make the decision and get on with it. As long as the decision is to keep it 25m. 50m would be totally untenable - you may as well shut down the food trucks all together. I don't own or have anything to do with the Food Trucks. I just think there is nothing wrong with the current distance of 25m
    Hide reply (1)
    • Mopsy almost 5 years ago
      I complete agree why not just ban them all together?