Victor Harbor | Developments & News

Developments in Regional South Australia. Including Port Lincoln, Victor Harbor, Wallaroo, Gawler and Mount Barker.
Message
Author
crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5370
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 307 times

#16 Post by crawf » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:48 pm

The project sounds very impressive, but Victor Harbor isnt really a big place and I'm worried it could kill of the CBD.

so I'm 50/50

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 139 times

#17 Post by Will » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:08 pm

I applaud the government for having the vision and leadership to grant major project status to such a visionary development. We have to remember that population projections predict that in a decade, Victor Harbor will have around 25 000 people.

If it was up to the councils, this state would still be in 1907.

bva
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

#18 Post by bva » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:59 pm

that is a bit harsh - i thought other threads referred to a young mayor who said he wants VH to thrive and expand?
i did see a small article mentioning that VH had referred to the site in its PAR and was surprised to see scheme and govt decision so quickly!
will be interesting

JAKJ
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:29 pm
Location: KTA/ADL ex PER/CNS/LA/SH
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Makris Encounter Bay dev't

#19 Post by JAKJ » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:27 pm

Cruise Control wrote:
JAKJ wrote:not the inbred council of decaying geriatrics that makes up local government in Victor Harbor
it funny you say that have you seen the average age of
A. Councliers
B. Members of the Parkland Preservation Society
C. Those who rallyied against the tram line extension

in closing i say there all pensioners with to much free time up their sleeve so they go out and complain about everything. There i said it.
Don't forget the North Adelaide society...

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

#20 Post by stumpjumper » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:39 am

Before you toss me in with the gerries, NIMBYs or whatever, I'd like to say that I know nothing about this development and I am not trying to judge it.

I'm talking about process. It's just as bad to have the 'all development is good development' lobby getting their way as it is to have the 'no development is good development' side having their way.

We live in a democracy, and more pertinently, we pay tax.

Sure we could have the governnment imposing its idea of development on us by fiat.

This is called a dictatorship, and while I might be able to live under one, I surely wouldn't be happy paying it any of my hard earned money.

Inconvenient as it may be to have to consult the taxpayers over where their money is spent, and the local residents in whose locality developments are planned, those processes are a necessary part of democracy.

If people like Foley think differently, they shojld go to somewhere like Zimbabwe to practice their form of government.

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 139 times

#21 Post by Will » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:09 pm

stumpjumper wrote:Before you toss me in with the gerries, NIMBYs or whatever, I'd like to say that I know nothing about this development and I am not trying to judge it.

I'm talking about process. It's just as bad to have the 'all development is good development' lobby getting their way as it is to have the 'no development is good development' side having their way.

We live in a democracy, and more pertinently, we pay tax.

Sure we could have the governnment imposing its idea of development on us by fiat.

This is called a dictatorship, and while I might be able to live under one, I surely wouldn't be happy paying it any of my hard earned money.

Inconvenient as it may be to have to consult the taxpayers over where their money is spent, and the local residents in whose locality developments are planned, those processes are a necessary part of democracy.

If people like Foley think differently, they shojld go to somewhere like Zimbabwe to practice their form of government.
But sometimes people do not know what is good for them. Development is a very good example. People ignorantly oppose development with hysterical claims. We elect governments to think and decide for us. Consulting the public in regard to every development and desicion is a waste of time and money. Such consultations would make us less attractive to potential investors and stagnate us.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2826
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 73 times

#22 Post by rhino » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:26 pm

Will wrote: But sometimes people do not know what is good for them. Development is a very good example. People ignorantly oppose development with hysterical claims. We elect governments to think and decide for us. Consulting the public in regard to every development and desicion is a waste of time and money. Such consultations would make us less attractive to potential investors and stagnate us.
I agree. The Government has put forward a proposal, and it is a base from which a limited period of consultation should follow. People seem to think that the government is bullying their way through, but in reality, if they didn't put up ideas, nothing would get done. The Wellington Wier is an example. Sure, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem, but it has forced the state to do something. The alternative is to discuss it for 10 years until it's either too late or everybody has forgotten about it.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Mants
Legendary Member!
Posts: 989
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 am
Location: City of Burnside
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 7 times

#23 Post by Mants » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:59 pm

btw there was a render in yesterdays paper

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

#24 Post by stumpjumper » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:00 am

'Sometimes people do not know what is good for them'

Hmm. That particular justification has been used for many yearrs by a certain style of government... I'd be very careful using it to justify government actions in a representative democracy. George Orwell was pretty good on this point.

Most of us would be happy enough for an accountant or doctor to impose a regime of management or treatment, because we have consented and are prepared to rely on their expertise.

But members of our type of society do not generally consent to the govt imposing development on our communities without proper analysis and process.

Why would we? Look at the record of the SA govt in development and business ventures in general - State Bank, Wine Centre, Myer development etc etc.

THere are more stakeholders than the developer and the government. I'm not arguing for endless talk, but a proper process where a need is established and a project scoped and assessed before implementation.

Btw, here's a motto for Will: 'I'm not right wing but I think we could be in Poland by lunchtime.' :wink:
Last edited by stumpjumper on Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

UrbanSG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:55 am
Been thanked: 7 times

#25 Post by UrbanSG » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:54 pm

I am definately a pro-development person. However not all development is good development. I am worried about this one. This really has the potential to completely stuff the Victor Harbor town centre up. Large mall developments often do this. The best example in SA is Port Adelaide. We get big americanised, car dominated malls built away from the main street and the whole street died completely. I admit not helped by economic circumstances at the time but the mall was the main reason.

We need to start thinking about reducing car dependancy and maintain some of our local shopping areas. They add a heap more life to an area than a mall with its blank walls, lack of active street frontages and car parks surrounding the whole thing for the soul purpose of lining the big mall developers and operators with huge profits. We can keep the large malls we already have but I don't think they should be added when there still isn't enough demand in an area as they kill off small businesses. When the demand is high enough there is at least more potential for people to still shop at smaller stores.

There is already a small mall in Victor which isn't very busy. Probabaly because it is crap. This should be done up instead of building another one as well imo. The council wouldn't have approved this because it would probably completely go against the Development Plan for the area.

Victor is developing quickly but how about some sensible development proposals that take into account all factors. I can't help but think the developers are just pushing this to stick it up local governments, after the past record, as well as to make a huge profit. I agree that the State Government should assess the project though due to its large scale.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5370
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 307 times

#26 Post by crawf » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:43 pm

Here Here mate, exactly how I feel. Building a complex which has the main shopping and entertainment facilities outside the town centre, would kill of the town centre and could become one of the biggest mistakes in the towns history. I would support a homemaker or a small shopping centre (with a supermarket and a few shops) but at this stage I don't think i can support it. I would rather Makris build something like this in the town centre.

BTW If a project like this was proposed on the outskirts of Mount Barker, I wouldn't be in support of it accept if it was a small shopping centre.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

#27 Post by stumpjumper » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:07 pm

UrbanSG and Crawf - well said.

This proposal, which I have now seen, has the potential to drastically alter the 'centre of commercial gravity' of VH.

This could result in huge financial cost to landholders in the present CBD, and various social costs.

Rather than pay the price for commercial land in the existing CBD, Makris has bought, or at least optioned, cheap land out of town, and wants it rezoned to accommodate his commercial venture. If his gain comes at great cost to others, well, it's not his problem. It's an old story.

His main selling job has been to convince the govt that he couldn't turn a dollar by building the new centre within the old CBD.

alfer7_3
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: Adelaide

#28 Post by alfer7_3 » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:03 pm

I'm sort of sceptical about this propsal. it seems large for Victor which probably not be able to sustain a cbd area aswell as a large shopping centre. when its not peak holiday season ocean st (main street) seems dead plus the cinemas will also take away from the entertainment from the centre of the town, however i think tourists will continue to go to the centre of victor not to this shopping centre, also if the housing is built first then the shopping centre this may not be built for another 10 years and victor will probably have a population over 20,000 by then and alot of population growth is happening to the north of the township eg Mc Cracken, Haybourgh, proposed 700 housing development by Mirvac etc and people on that side of the township wouldnt drive past the centre of the town where they can already do their shopping to get to the other side of the town. The old Victa cinema in ocean street is definatly going to close down because of this development. no doubt about it but if this development is done appropriately considering the whole town in mind and not just sucking the life out of the centre of victor only to the gain of the developer then it could be good. if not it could have a detremental effect to vctor which could be regretable seeing victor is SA's most popular seaside town. The Victor council has proposed to revamp the town centre to make it more vibrant and attractive but i havent heard of any progress on that for ages. has anyone?? cheers

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5497
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 391 times
Been thanked: 139 times

#29 Post by Will » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:57 pm

stumpjumper wrote:'Sometimes people do not know what is good for them'

Hmm. That particular justification has been used for many yearrs by a certain style of government... I'd be very careful using it to justify government actions in a representative democracy. George Orwell was pretty good on this point.

Most of us would be happy enough for an accountant or doctor to impose a regime of management or treatment, because we have consented and are prepared to rely on their expertise.

But as members of our type of society do not generally consent to the govt imposing development on our communities without proper analysis and process.

Why would we? Look at the record of the SA govt in development and business ventures in general - State Bank, Wine Centre, Myer development etc etc.

THere are more stakeholders than the developer and the government. I'm not arguing for endless talk, but a proper process where a need is established and a project scoped and assessed before implementation.

Btw, here's a motto for Will: 'I'm not right wing but I think we could be in Poland by lunchtime.' :wink:
Your mentallity represents everything wrong with this state. For you the words development and progress are dirty and evil. If there had to be consultations about every single development this state would never have achieved anything. The people that would participate in such consultations are usually those who are passionately against development thus producing a distorted public view. With every decision there will always be people who disagree, but this state needs leaders with vision who will not allow the state to be derailed by hysterical minorities. The greater good has always got to be considered. Development creates jobs and prosperity. On the other hand leaving the state "the way it used to be" will only result in the destruction of the state economy.

stumpjumper
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:10 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

#30 Post by stumpjumper » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:04 pm

NEWS FLASH!!

To be built next to Will's house in a quiet backwater above Encounter Bay - a $250 million shopping complex and carpark.

The area has been rezoned 'District Shopping' although Will's property is still zoned residential.

Will's property has lost $100,000 in value but he cannot do anything about it as the new centre is a declared Major Project and there is no appeal. Traffic movements past Will's house will increase from 120 per day to 3,000 per day.

The centre developer bought the properties next door to Will at residential prices. The value of that land doubled with the subsequent rezoning.

The plan made available for public consultation (which is advisory only, the project will go through) shows Will's house opposite the centre's service bays for deliveries and 4am garbage compactions and pickups.

Will feels he should celebrate the arrival of the new development, but is beginning to have misgivings... he is starting to wish that the developer had bought up land in the old CBD and redeveloped that, which could have been done without causing any conflict, although at more expense for the developer.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests