They've been there quite a while.  Every time I see them I want to hold up a sign that says, "Whining and bitching and pissing, oh my!"

When my husband and I were first moving into the area last year, I was anxiously anticipating what new business was being constructed on the corner. I began imagining all the possibilities. To my disappointment and dismay, it ended up being McDonald's. Although, I hadn't noticed them myself, I like the signs.

Good for them! I'm sure it's the neighbors indulging in some grassroots protesting. More power to them. I know some of those neighbors and it's a real shame about the trees being cut down between their homes and McDonalds.

So, are "greed" and "trees" supposed to rhyme there?

The lame part to me (other than the poor rhyming) is the references to McD's greasy, unhealthy food.  What does that have to do with the remodeling?  It's not like the menu became less healthy when they opened the new place.

one would think that having an improved view of the lake would be desirable. That McDonald's has been there forever, the residents knew what they were moving into. Damn, Duluthians sure love to complain.

Yeah they sure do, don't they?

Though I love personal protest of corporate identities, I think their arguments are a bit weak.

The tree argument is that they cut down fully-grown trees and replaced them with new trees (which are not yet fully-grown). The the neighbors that lived there said the larger trees blocked the noise and view of the McD's.
I can understand it's disappointing to see full-grown trees removed, but it is on their property, so I guess McD's can do what they want, and it's nice that they replanted some new ones when they didn't have to.

As far as the stolen land, I find it highly unlikely that a large corp like McD's, the highly-paid architects they would hire, and the city code commissioners would have made a property line mistake and build on land that wasn't theirs.
I think the most likely explanation is that McD's wasn't using a portion of their property in the old design, so the neighbor just thought it was his. Once they reclaimed the unused portion, neighbor freak out.

if i'm reading this correctly, my bitchy neighbor can thus protest the razing of my garage and the building of an 8X10 shed and playhouse for my kids.

there are other options to complaining about things you can't control. while McD's removal of the old trees to facilitate newer construction indeed sucks, there really isn't anything that they can *legally* do about it save putting up a privacy fence of their own.

I've been inside a neighbor's house both before and after the trees were cut down. Big difference in terms of the lights at night and the noise from outside. But then, like someone wrote, they did move next to a commercial area. Still sucks for the people living there. THose new trees can't grow in fast enough.

@James: It's not about sticking up for McDonalds or not. I'm fairly certain that all of us here can agree that most of their food is not healthy. The only reason I generally go there is for coffee. 

A lot of this discussion has been about whether or not McDonalds as a business has done anything illegal or immoral in this specific case. As far as I can tell, what they did was within their rights. They even went above and beyond what was necessary by planting new trees.

Granted, I can understand why a property owner would feel anger towards McDonalds. But to put these signs up (especially the obesity one) seems to be misplaced effort.

i don't think anyone's really sticking up for McD's, and no one is *forced* to go to McDonald's and eat their shitty food.

the legalities of the situation don't take into account the neighbor's feelings on the subject, nor should they. private property and zoning codes permit everything they have done up to this point. Had the trees been on the other side of the line, they'd still be there. as it stands, they weren't and are now gone.

likewise, the new nine story hotel that is going up on Park Point is legal, according to the zoning codes set up by the city planners. you don't *have* to like it. had the city given the owner the variance to annex adjacent property, the hotel would have been less likely to obstruct the view of its neighbors.

Mcdonalds had the right to tear those trees down, just as those neighbors have a right to bitch.  

Like mentioned before, you buy a house near a commercial area, you should know that this type of thing is possible.  You have the right to bitch but it is a bit tacky.

IF they didn't have the "tree signs," and only had the "grease-obesity-oh my" signs, this thread would be completely different.

Look, it might have been legal for McD's to cut down those trees. However, was it logical? What was the point? The trees were on the other side of the fence, and there was no reason to rip them out. Aesthetically, they were better than the nothing that is there now. 

People can do what they want on their property, for the most part. But when people rip out healthy trees that provide privacy and a sound barrier, there's nothing wrong with someone saying "WTF?" is there? I mean, okay, they went to some lengths to stop it, and now there's a protest sign. *shrugs* At least they've found a way to channel their anger.

Ah yes. That's right. Evil trees *might* fall on something. Cut 'em all down.

Vegas odds of what will knock down power lines in Duluth next:

Tree behind McDonald's: 250-1
Lightning strike: 3-1
Ice-covered tree limb: 4-1
Retarded squirrel: 6-1
Inflated self-worth of Danny: Even money
Corporatist conspiracy masterminded by Dave Sorenson: 9-4
Incompetent city union worker: 2-1
PDD server overload: 500-1
A Sharla Gardner excuse: 10-1
A Todd Fedora meltdown: 9-1
Mayor Ness' campaign bus: 100-1