Chuck4 ([info]chuck4) wrote,
@ 2008-06-25 11:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Madison proposed drive-thru ban makes national news
Good job Madison, you weren't retarded enough already. Time to ban drive-thrus at Starbucks because they cause global warming!

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/293046

Now featured on the Drudge Report :/

(Post a new comment)


[info]mercyskye.pip.verisignlabs.com
2008-06-25 05:08 pm UTC (link)
I'm not understanding why they can't just restrict the one, particular Starbucks from having a drive-through (the one proposed by Crown Plaza), based on the obvious traffic congestion there. Where does the leap in logic send someone to "BAN ALL DRIVETHRUS TO SAVE THE ATMOSPHERE"?

Why don't we ban the construction of further Starbucks? That's something I could get behind.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]chuck4
2008-06-25 05:49 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, the planning decision about traffic congestion on that one corner turning into "screaming hissy fits about the shape of the world's future" is what I was referring to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]d33ann
2008-06-25 07:45 pm UTC (link)
I've always thought that drive-thrus of all kinds were rather weird. If you can't get out of your car to get food, then maybe you have some lifestyle issues that need to be addressed. I wouldn't mind if they banned all drive thrus, everywhere.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]chuck4
2008-06-25 07:55 pm UTC (link)
I'm sure that would set off an ADA lawsuitfest.

I don't like them much myself, but I'm pretty firmly against banning things I don't like unless there's a better reason. I tend to dislike a lot of things.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thairishkat
2008-06-25 09:42 pm UTC (link)
As long as the building is ADA accesible, there's no legal issue. Otherwise, people could sue any business that doesn't have a drive-thru.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chuck4
2008-06-25 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I doubt they'd be suing the businesses, but I'm sure people would be angry and try to block a law that made things less convenient for them. (I'm just basing this on one of the comments I skimmed.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thairishkat
2008-06-25 09:54 pm UTC (link)
I just don't think a drive-thru is part of ADA compliance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]chuck4
2008-06-25 10:06 pm UTC (link)
I'm sure it's not (ok, not sure, that's a very big set of laws) but I don't think that will stop lawyers looking for bucks. Even if there's no legal standing, "this is inconvenient for someone in a wheelchair" type lawsuits will probably get settled out of court because fighting them is too expensive. On the other hand, I may just be making a very long pun based on drive-by lawsuits:

http://www.sfweekly.com/2007-07-25/news/wheelchairs-of-fortune/full

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]thairishkat
2008-06-25 10:22 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I know what you mean by the lawsuits. I'll check out that article, it looks pretty interesting.

People are always looking for a good reason to sue, even if it's to the detriment of other consumers in the form of raised prices or increased regulation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]brainyserf
2008-06-25 09:05 pm UTC (link)
I dare say this is a nontroversy. One dude on the citizen panel makes a suggestion, and suddenly its blown up to be like it's going to become law TOMORROW, and Drudge has some red meat to throw his knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing readers.

I predict this isn't going to go anywhere.

(Reply to this)


[info]tylerpierce
2008-06-26 12:17 am UTC (link)
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I remember fifteen or twenty years ago when Madison was determined to outlaw polystyrene fast food packaging.

Keep tilting at those windmills!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…