The SA Politics Thread

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 448 times
Been thanked: 673 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1066 Post by Llessur2002 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:55 pm

rev wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:24 pm
To fill up a car, say 50 litres, can range from $59 @ $1.19/L to $84 @ $1.69/L.

Using Uber, from Henley Beach it will cost $24-$32 per trip. $48 a day. $240 a week minimum.
Blair Athol to the CBD - $20-$27. $40 a day. $200 a week minimum.
Brompton to the CBD - $14-$19. $28 a day. $140 a week minimum.
Mile End to the CBD - $12-$17. $24 a day. $120 a week minimum.

Five days a week.

You don't have a car, or access to the only car you have. So you now have to factor in more spending on Uber to get around.

That tank of fuel for between $59 and $84 a week, will get you a lot further for less money then Uber will.
Let's say that your average weekly spend on fuel is $70 a week averaged out for the whole year. That's $3,640 for the year on fuel.
$120 a week Mile End to CBD, is $6,240 a year. Factor in Uber spending of a couple thousand more since you've given up your car.

Lets factor in registration for the year for your car. $600-$800.
Insurance, $500-800.
Servicing every six months, another $500-600 unless you go to a cheap nasty mechanic.

You are still better off financially with your own car, then giving it up for Uber or a taxi.
Not only that, but you are better off because you have more flexibility and convenience available to you.

You guys might have that alternative mindset, alternative living and all that, but the majority of people don't share that. That's why the taxi hasn't replaced mass personal vehicle ownership. And that's why Uber and others wont either.
Don't forget to factor in the depreciation of the car. I would suspect the average family car depreciates by around $10,000-$15,000 over a five year period - $2000-$3000 per year on average (although in reality a larger chunk of that will happen in the first year of ownership and tail off as the car gets older).

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1067 Post by rev » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:10 pm

Nathan wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:39 pm
rev wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:24 pm
To fill up a car, say 50 litres, can range from $59 @ $1.19/L to $84 @ $1.69/L.

Using Uber, from Henley Beach it will cost $24-$32 per trip. $48 a day. $240 a week minimum.
Blair Athol to the CBD - $20-$27. $40 a day. $200 a week minimum.
Brompton to the CBD - $14-$19. $28 a day. $140 a week minimum.
Mile End to the CBD - $12-$17. $24 a day. $120 a week minimum.

Five days a week.

You don't have a car, or access to the only car you have. So you now have to factor in more spending on Uber to get around.

That tank of fuel for between $59 and $84 a week, will get you a lot further for less money then Uber will.
Let's say that your average weekly spend on fuel is $70 a week averaged out for the whole year. That's $3,640 for the year on fuel.
$120 a week Mile End to CBD, is $6,240 a year. Factor in Uber spending of a couple thousand more since you've given up your car.

Lets factor in registration for the year for your car. $600-$800.
Insurance, $500-800.
Servicing every six months, another $500-600 unless you go to a cheap nasty mechanic.

You are still better off financially with your own car, then giving it up for Uber or a taxi.
Not only that, but you are better off because you have more flexibility and convenience available to you.

You guys might have that alternative mindset, alternative living and all that, but the majority of people don't share that. That's why the taxi hasn't replaced mass personal vehicle ownership. And that's why Uber and others wont either.
No one is suggested using an Uber/Taxi every day. Of course that doesn't stack up. The argument is for people who use the additional car more sparingly (or could adapt to using it more sparingly), then it can be cheaper to use those services (and stop ignoring carshare services) instead of having that additional car sitting there and all the costs that involves.
Ok lets talk carshare.
https://www.goget.com.au/pricing/

Three plans. These are prices for a small hatchback, their cheapest.
GoStarter - $49 a year membership fee, and From $10.65/hr + $0.40/km, $87/day for a car. 1 Driver. Yearly membership.
GoOccasional - $12 a month membership fee, From $9.45/hr + $0.40/km $79/day. 2 Drivers. 6 month membership, then month to month.
GoFrequent - $30 a month membership fee, From $6.35/hr + $0.40/km $74/day. 4 Drivers. Month to Month membership.

150km is included in all plans.

Am I reading that correct?
Becauase it doesn't sound very economical.

CarNextDoor from $25/d..use it for the working week, $125.
Even for two days use, that's $50. You wouldn't spend even half of that on fuel in your own personal vehicle in two days.

On DriveMyCar, the cheapest I can find is $20/d.

The cheaper the car, the smaller the car.
The bigger the car, the more expensive. Same with age of the car.

It might be useful, when you're desperate to get somewhere once off, but it's not an economical or viable alternative to owning your own car.
The money you will spend on these cars, you may as well catch a bus, ride a bike, or walk, and save mots of that money to buy your own car.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1068 Post by rev » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:12 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:55 pm
rev wrote:
Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:24 pm
To fill up a car, say 50 litres, can range from $59 @ $1.19/L to $84 @ $1.69/L.

Using Uber, from Henley Beach it will cost $24-$32 per trip. $48 a day. $240 a week minimum.
Blair Athol to the CBD - $20-$27. $40 a day. $200 a week minimum.
Brompton to the CBD - $14-$19. $28 a day. $140 a week minimum.
Mile End to the CBD - $12-$17. $24 a day. $120 a week minimum.

Five days a week.

You don't have a car, or access to the only car you have. So you now have to factor in more spending on Uber to get around.

That tank of fuel for between $59 and $84 a week, will get you a lot further for less money then Uber will.
Let's say that your average weekly spend on fuel is $70 a week averaged out for the whole year. That's $3,640 for the year on fuel.
$120 a week Mile End to CBD, is $6,240 a year. Factor in Uber spending of a couple thousand more since you've given up your car.

Lets factor in registration for the year for your car. $600-$800.
Insurance, $500-800.
Servicing every six months, another $500-600 unless you go to a cheap nasty mechanic.

You are still better off financially with your own car, then giving it up for Uber or a taxi.
Not only that, but you are better off because you have more flexibility and convenience available to you.

You guys might have that alternative mindset, alternative living and all that, but the majority of people don't share that. That's why the taxi hasn't replaced mass personal vehicle ownership. And that's why Uber and others wont either.
Don't forget to factor in the depreciation of the car. I would suspect the average family car depreciates by around $10,000-$15,000 over a five year period - $2000-$3000 per year on average (although in reality a larger chunk of that will happen in the first year of ownership and tail off as the car gets older).
That doesn't affect your running costs though. Insurance and registration don't go down for example, because the value of your car has gone down. Unless there's some insurance company that does that that is a well kept secret.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 448 times
Been thanked: 673 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1069 Post by Llessur2002 » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:21 pm

No, but if a car is kept solely for the purpose of commuting (which many second vehicles would be) then the depreciation of the car should be taken into account when comparing private vehicle use vs Uber etc. It is a cost which would not exist if the car was not owned.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1070 Post by rev » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:54 am

Another pay rise for our politicians. $4687/year increase, the premier is taking home $9,000 extra a year.

The premier will now be paid $401,252
Backbenchers will be paid $200,626
Opposition leader, ministers, speaker of the house and upper house president are now on $351,096
Labor front benchers $250,000

The full list of what SA state politicians get paid;

Code: Select all

Basham	David	2018	HoA	Finniss	$200,626
Bedford	Frances	1997	HoA	Florey	$200,626
Bell	Troy	2014	HoA	Mt Gambier	$200,626
Bettison	Zoe	2012	HoA	Ramsey	$250,783
Bignell	Leon	2006	HoA	Mawson	$200,626
Bonaros	Connie	2018	LC		$200,626
Bourke	Emily	2018	HoA		$200,626
Boyer	Blair	2018	HoA	Wright	$200,626
Brock	Geoff	2009	HoA	Frome	$200,626
Brown	Michael 	2018	HoA	Playford	$236,739
Chapman	Vickie	2002	HoA	Bragg	$371,158
Close	Susan	2012	HoA	Port Adelaide	$321,002
Cook 	Nat	2014	HoA	Hurtle Vale	$250,783
Cowdrey	Matt	2018	HoA	Colton	$200,626
Cregan	Dan	2018	HoA	Kavel	$228,714
Darley	John	2007	LC		$200,626
Dawkins	John	1997	LC		$228,714
Duluk	Sam	2015	HoA	Waite	$234,732
Ellis	Fraser	2018	HoA	Narunnga	$200,626
Franks	Tammy	2010	LC		$200,626
Gardner	John	2010	HoA	Morialta	$351,096
Gee	Jon	2014	HoA	Taylor	$200,626
Habib	Carolyn	2018	HoA	Elder	$240,751
Hanson	Justin	2017	LC		$200,626
Harvey	Richard	2018	HoA	Newland	$200,626
Hildyard	Katrine	2014	HoA	Reynell	$250,783
Hood	Dennis	2014	LC		$228,714
Hughes	Eddie	2014	HoA	Giles	$250,783
Hunter	Ian	2006	LC		$220,689
Knoll	Stephan	2014	HoA	Schubert	$351,096
Koutsantonis	Tom	1997	HoA	West Torrens	$250,783
Lee	Jing	2010	LC		$240,751
Lensink	Michelle	2003	LC		$351,096
Lucas	Robert	1982	LC		$371,158
Luethen	Paula	2018	HoA	King	$200,626
Maher	Kyam	2012	LC		$321,002
Malinauskas	Peter	2015	HoA	Croydon	$351,096
Marshall	Steven	2010	HoA	Dunstan	$401,252
McBride	Nick	2018	HoA	MacKillop	$200,626
McLachlan	Andrew	2014	LC		$351,096
Michaels	Andrea	2019	HoA	Enfield	$200,626
Mullighan	Stephen	2014	HoA	Lee	$250,783
Murray 	Steve	2018	HoA	Davenport	$200,626
Ngo	Tung	2014	LC		$200,626
Odenwalder	Lee	2010	HoA	Elizabeth	$250,783
Pangallo	Frank 	2018	LC		$200,626
Parnell	Mark	2006	LC		$200,626
Patterson	Stephen	2018	HoA	Morphett	$200,626
Pederick	Adrian	2006	HoA	Hammond	$236,739
Piccolo	Tony	2006	HoA	Light	$250,783
Picton	Chris	2014	HoA	Kaurna	$250,783
Pisoni	David	2006	HoA	Unley	$351,096
Pnevmatikos	Irene	2018	LC		$200,626
Ridgway	David	2002	LC		$351,096
Sanderson	Rachel	2010	HoA	Adelaide	$351,096
Scriven	Clare	2018	LC		$250,783
Speirs	David	2014	HoA	Black	$351,096
Stephens	Terry	2002	LC		$228,714
Stinson	Jayne	2018	HoA	Badcoe	$250,783
Szakacs	Joe	2019	HoA	Cheltenham	$200,626
Tarzia	Vincent	2014	HoA	Hartley	$351,096
Teague	Josh	2018	HoA	Heysen	$228,714
Treloar	Peter	2010	HoA	Flinders	$275,861
van Holst Pelekaan	Dan	2010	HoA	Stuart	$351,096
Wade	Stephen	2006	LC		$351,096
Whetstone	Tim	2010	HoA	Chaffey	$351,096
Wingard	Corey	2014	HoA	Gibson	$351,096
Wortley	Russell	2006	LC		$200,626
Wortley	Dana	2014	HoA	Torrens	$200,626

$17.7 million and rising to pay 69 individuals who do nothing to create jobs and improve the economic situation of the population.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1071 Post by rev » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 pm

Unemployment rate up to 6.9%.

The treasurer, whose being paid $371,158, is disappointed. But he and the rest of the government are doing nothing meaningful to bring/create new jobs. Just more talk and spin.
While they get another pay rise.
All they've done is raise the cost of living for the average South Australian, while more people lose their jobs, and many more are under employed.

He's trying to pass it off as being out of their control, blaming national and international issues that they don't have any control over. He's even blaming the US-China trade war.
“We don’t control or dictate everything. We can invest in terms of public infrastructure
LOL. Is that before or after ruling out new tram network extensions?
we can invest in terms of trying to lower the cost of doing business
Hows that? By raising the cost of living, so people spend less on other things, which hurts business, and ultimately hurts the governments bottom line?

They've hit the people with the increase in cost of living. There goes consumer confidence and a drop in spending.
Now business groups are nervous over land tax (rightly or wrongly, time will tell). But make the private sector nervous and create an uncertain atmosphere, and business investment dries up too.

There's fears globally of another major financial crisis now. We missed the so called mining boom boat last time, because by the time we started to gear up, the GFC hit and the mining industry pulled back.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1072 Post by rev » Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:13 pm

Something useful from the ABC for a change..

Flamable cladding audit has been underway in SA since 2017.
Adelaide Oval, nRAH and convention centre are some of buildings identified so far.
Convention Centre was confirmed last year.

Whats been done? Jack shit.

MFS are worried, want the materials tested.
But government isnt doing anything, because the centre has "sufficient" fire suppression systems.

User avatar
gnrc_louis
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Grange
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1073 Post by gnrc_louis » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:43 pm

rev wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:13 pm
Something useful from the ABC for a change..

Flamable cladding audit has been underway in SA since 2017.
Adelaide Oval, nRAH and convention centre are some of buildings identified so far.
Convention Centre was confirmed last year.

Whats been done? Jack shit.

MFS are worried, want the materials tested.
But government isnt doing anything, because the centre has "sufficient" fire suppression systems.
ABC News online is an excellent source of local and Australian news online. Infinitely better in particular than any of the Newscorp stable who are both awfully written and continually lack in-depth coverage of important events.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1074 Post by rev » Wed Sep 04, 2019 5:00 pm

Lol. Steven Marshall thinks theres no problem with unemployment in SA.
Jeez can these clowns masquerading as politicians be any more out of touch with reality?

We really need to vote these incompetent bufoons out at the next election. Hopefully the damage theyre doing is quickly reversable.
And hopefully with Labor back in, they put their foot down and ramp up the amount of infrastructure being built simultaneously and the speed of building it, hopefully they go big.

Long way to go yet, but Labor should be planning to hit the ground running from now as much as and where possible, because I cant see a single reason why at this stage Liberals will be voted back in.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1075 Post by rev » Sun Sep 08, 2019 3:59 pm

Beat Budget blues by getting private sector to pay, Infrastructure SA told
Chris Russell, Sunday Mail (SA)
September 7, 2019 10:00pm
Subscriber only

How to get the most out of your Advertiser digital subscription

Toll roads and privatisation of public infrastructure are desperately needed to get the state moving, business leaders say.

Infrastructure SA is formulating a 20-year strategy which will underpin thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in spending by the State Government.

Peak bodies including Business SA, Australian Industry Group, the Civil Contractors Union, mining companies and lobby groups have called for a rethink in how to fund projects.

Several groups specifically call for tolls, saying businesses accept paying them to speed up projects and improve efficiency.

Other funding options include public private partnerships (PPPs) for schools and hospitals such as the new Women’s and Children’s Hospital, energy projects, housing or water supply as well as financial bonds where companies make investments for steady returns.

Infrastructure SA is an independent advisory body and has a mandated task is to investigate different funding models, its chief executive, Jeremy Conway, said.

“We’re all aware there are Budget constraints and so you need to explore what options may be available,” Mr Conway told the Sunday Mail.

When parliament established Infrastructure SA, Premier Steven Marshall highlighted that it would provide “advice on appropriate funding and financing models”.

Mr Marshall yesterday did not comment directly on the renewed calls for toll roads but, before the 2018 election, said his government “will not support tolls”.

However, he is understood to be open to various innovative private sector financing arrangements.

The government is already tendering for PPPs on the new north and south schools at Angle Vale and Aldinga.

“Infrastructure SA’s 20-year strategy will ensure SA has a long-term infrastructure plan, something we have lacked in the past”, Mr Marshall told the Sunday Mail.

This year’s Budget had included $11.9 billion of infrastructure projects over the next four years to support jobs and the economy, he said.

That program will push the state’s net debt up from $13.6 billion as at June this year to $21.3 billion by June 2023.

Calls from business groups in submissions to Infrastructure SA include:

EMPLOYER body Australian Industry Group said the Government should sell or lease public assets and then recycle the money into new projects such as rail or road.

BUSINESS SA said its members were “open to the potential for toll roads to expedite road infrastructure”.

SA Chamber of Mines and Energy called for strategies to unlock identified but stranded mineral riches — which could include creating a new government body to build infrastructure corridors which companies would pay to use.

MINING company OZ Minerals said it was willing to invest in projects to be shared with the public or other companies.

THE Civil Contractors Federation said “a user-pays system like toll roads for heavy freight routes is a logical option”.

THE Centre for Automotive Safety Research said PPPs could deliver innovative solutions to improve road safety.

FREIGHT lobby group the Australian Logistics Council said there was “increasing acceptance” that the way Australians pay for roads must change because taxes and fuel excises were not keeping pace with demand.

THE Property Council said “the lens of infrastructure delivery needs to be switched from ‘public funding necessity’ to ‘private sector opportunity’ ”.

President of Parliament’s Economic and Finance Committee, Waite MP Sam Duluk, said the Government wanted to attract private money especially from super funds.

Australian Industry Group SA head Stephen Myatt said it was a “matter of good government management” to consider privatisations such as the Lotteries Commission and the Motor Accident Commission “to name a few”.

A Federal Government program from 2014 and June this year paid states to sell assets to the private sector and roll the money into new projects — with NSW getting more than $2 billion to sell electricity corporations and other assets and then invest in underground motorways.

That program has ended but the Federal Government welcomes privately funded infrastructure.

“The Australian Government supports the use of private financing mechanisms, including toll roads,” a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister and Infrastructure Minister Michael McCormack said.

The Property Council called for new funding models.

“The private sector is, in many cases, willing and able to identify infrastructure shortfalls, plan, fund and build the necessary projects, without the need for government to fund the entirety of the project,” the council’s SA executive director, Daniel Gannon, said.

Mr Conway said Infrastructure SA is working through more than 100 public submissions and input from government agencies and meeting interest groups.

Urgent attention was needed on finalising the North-South Corridor and then connecting that to the South Eastern Freeway.

Suggestions have included the RAA calling for Cross Rd to be upgraded, the SA Freight Council’s tunnel under the Hills to Springbank-Daws roads and the Liberal Party election policy of a bypass from Monarto sweeping behind Adelaide Hills through the Barossa.

“They’re big ticket items,” Mr Conway said.

“There’s also been conversations around technology and how it might change things in the future such as autonomous vehicles, telehealth and digital delivery of services.”

Many submissions emphasised the importance of regional areas in achieving the Government’s growth targets of 3 per cent a year.

Infrastructure SA aims to report to Mr Marshall by about March next year, with the Government then to accept, adapt or reject the 20-year strategy.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... aff4c24016

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1076 Post by rev » Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:51 pm

Heritage alliance urged to take fight over historic buildings to state MPs
Renato Castello, Urban Development Editor, The Messenger
September 19, 2019 1:42pm
Subscriber only

Opponents of planning reforms they fear will imperil their historic neighbourhoods have been urged to target their local MPs in a bid to halt the erosion of the state’s cultural heritage.

About 500 people at a pro-heritage forum at Norwood last night for the launch of a new Protect Our Heritage Alliance, which will campaign to safeguard historic neighbourhoods from unimpeded development.

The alliance has been formed in response to the planned rollout of a single planning and design rule book for the state residents and councils fear will erode demolition protection for nearly 12,000 historic buildings.

Heritage consultant Denise Schumann OAM told the forum at the Norwood Concert Hall that successive governments had not protected heritage and people must start to target their local members.

“I think people have to stop being naive if they think that playing by the rules you are going to protect your heritage,” the wife of musician John Schumann said.

“We have seen successive erosion to what is the value and the cultural identity of our state’s heritage.

“You will not change anything unless you threaten their seats (politicians) — this has got to be a political campaign.”

She said the State Planning Commission, which is driving the planning reforms, was pro development and that it did not view heritage as a valuable community, social, economic or cultural concept.

A key concern of the reforms is the potential threat to contributory items, thousands of historic homes that contribute to the heritage value of neighbourhoods, such as St Peters, Kensington, Brompton, Port Adelaide, Unley and Gawler.

It is proposed these places, listed in council development plans and contained within heritage conservation zones, will not transfer into a statewide planning and design code legislated to begin operation from July.

Sydney heritage expert David Logan warned experience interstate is removing contributory items led to buildings being “picked off”.

“If you want to keep the heritage value of the area then you need to retain contributory items, if you allow them to be whittled away or be eroded then eventually you will not have a historic conservation zone,” he said.

“You end up with replacement dwellings, most of which dominate the streetscape and most of which dominate the character and scale of the area, so it’s a double-whammy effect, you lose the historic value and the new development is actually detracting from the character and significance of the area.”

He said keeping and identifying contributory items created more certainty for owners and was fairer for purchasers.

“Even if they don’t want to demolish it, they will know there’s an expectation the changes they want to make will go through greater scrutiny,” he said.

“Not allowing councils to identify them … you actually end up fighting rearguard battles and you do lose contributory items.”

The commission and Planning Minister Stephan Knoll have said publicly that contributory items have no legal status and therefore cannot transfer over to the new code.

They have also argued there is inconsistency between councils over planning controls governing management of these buildings.

Instead they have said new heritage overlays, to replace historic conservation zones, will strengthen demolition control, a claim the National Trust refuted.

Planning Commission chairman Michael Lennon rejected the assertion it was pro any particular industry or sector.

“This is a statewide once-in-a-generation planning reform, prescribed by parliament, which is being delivered in an non-biased, evidence-based way,” he said.

“It is important to note that only 25 councils of the state’s 68 councils have contributory items within their boundaries so this is not a state issue but a local one for particular suburbs mainly within Greater Adelaide.”

He said the draft code, including heritage-related proposals, will go on public consultation from October.

Norwood Payneham & St Peters Mayor Robert Bria told a parliamentary committee this month that the loss of contributory items will rewrite SA’s history “with a bulldozer”.

Emeritus Professor Warren Jones, who his heading up the new alliance, said the community response at last night’s meeting was a warning to Mr Knoll and the government to rethink their approach to heritage management.

“After 18 years of inaction by both Liberal and Labor governments to improve heritage protections, changes are being rushed and compromised and are disregarding a growing groundswell of concern,” he said.

The Advertiser has sought comment from Mr Knoll.
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 70b5390062

What a broad demographic this group represents.... :lol:
Image
Image

500 people...so 0.02% of the population. Woowee.

The vast majority of those 12,000 "heritage" buildings would be housing, and private property at that.

What significance does the majority of it (12,000 buildings) even serve, culturally?
Did someone of significance to this state, city, that local suburb, or this country in general, build it, or live in it?
Or is the majority of it simply considered heritage because of it's age and era it was built in? Because if that's the case, who cares.

People here act like most of what they consider heritage has played some sort of significant role in western civilization. It's mostly old damn houses with no connection to anyone of prominence or any prominent event in history.

How many entire streets are full from end to end, of "heritage" homes, that are of actual value because of their design/characteristics/features, and not simply called heritage because of their age? If there are any, this old-age group should put their money where their mouths are, buy them all up, foot the bill to maintain them, and lease them out.
If a local council, or the state government for that matter, thinks a particular house or some houses are worth keeping around, because they are the last example or the best example of a particular style from a bygone era, then let them buy those houses and maintain them.

If someone buys an old house, they shouldn't be restricted from modernizing it or knocking it over and building something new, if it's simply that that house is really old so someone thinks it should be listed as heritage even though there's no significant cultural connection to it.

Parliament House, new and old, Government house, the old incinerator in Brompton, the Woolsheds & Harts Mill at the Port, the Railway station building..the remnants of the old settlements in the Flinders..those are the sorts of buildings worth maintaining and preserving from the bulldozers. They are significant to the history of this state and city.

In 100 years, are we going to heritage list houses built in the 1990's for example at Renown Park just off Torrens and Harrison roads? How about West Lakes..well what's left of whatever hasn't sunk back into the swamp underneath...? :lol:

Planning laws, regulations, just like laws and regulations for doing business, should be as streamlined and as simple and straight forward as possible with as little red tape as necessary, with unnecessary fees and unnecessarily high fees removed. That is some of what state government should be doing to help push the economy forward, making it as easy as possible to do business in South Australia, because that is also what helps attract outside investment into the state.

bva
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1077 Post by bva » Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:05 pm

You are welcome to an opinion but that is bollocks.
Much appeal in inner Adelaide is contained in its rich heritage - these buildings are not individually all worthy of listing but create a collective streetscape that should be protected. Thinking like that ruined parts of London and Birmingham in the 60's, yet it is the areas that were retained that command higher prices. Eroding this character to far will bland these streets beyond recognition. I am not an economist but I do not believe that allowing people to demolish character dwellings will not stimulate the economy in the long term, rather it would mean these areas of individuality and character would be lost for future generations. These areas have been reviewed by successive heritage architects, planners etc and are worth protecting in my view. To buy with intent to speculate is best stymied now.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1078 Post by rev » Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:17 pm

bva wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:05 pm
You are welcome to an opinion but that is bollocks.
Much appeal in inner Adelaide is contained in its rich heritage - these buildings are not individually all worthy of listing but create a collective streetscape that should be protected. Thinking like that ruined parts of London and Birmingham in the 60's, yet it is the areas that were retained that command higher prices. Eroding this character to far will bland these streets beyond recognition. I am not an economist but I do not believe that allowing people to demolish character dwellings will not stimulate the economy in the long term, rather it would mean these areas of individuality and character would be lost for future generations. These areas have been reviewed by successive heritage architects, planners etc and are worth protecting in my view. To buy with intent to speculate is best stymied now.
Yeh, if there's entire streets with old well maintained homes and/or homes that can be restored within reason they should be protected? Isn't that what I said in part of my post?
Eroding this character to far will bland these streets beyond recognition.
Cookie cutter developments that these same councils that bitch about heritage being lost, also allow to happen, is how you get bland beyond recognition.
I'll tell you what councils are really concerned about. They're concerned about the government telling them what they can and cant do by taking away some of their planning powers/authority.

I'll give you some examples of what I'm talking about.
Coombe Road between Grange Road and Brand Ave at Allenby Gardens. That's a street that should have been preserved and no modern architecture allowed.
But the local council has allowed quite a few examples of modern housing, even units.
Parts of West Croydon are another example.
Then look at Brompton when you are done with those. You have all that new housing, most of it wall to wall. A street over you have some old housing that dates back to the establishment of the suburb or there abouts. In that same street you have the Mcleys warehouse (cant remember the name of the street but I know the mcleys carpet guys are there), as well as some new modern housing, some of it wall to wall. While the old housing in that street isn't on par with that of say Coombe Road, it is worth protecting because of it's significance to the local area and growth/history of Adelaide.

Do you think though that all those 12,000 properties they mention in the article, fit in to those categories above? Because you're kidding your self if you do.

It should be about protecting what is worth protecting, not protecting old buildings for the sake of them being old.
I am not an economist but I do not believe that allowing people to demolish character dwellings will not stimulate the economy in the long term, rather it would mean these areas of individuality and character would be lost for future generations.
You've jumped from one argument to another entirely here.
You don't need to be an economist. Its simple. New homes being built equates to money circulating in the economy. Jobs are created. Dwellings are furnished and landscaped. Government duties are collected.

Take a look at those pictures of that heritage protection group I posted above. Does that look like future generations to you? Does it look like future generations care about some old houses? They care about climate change, that's what they're protesting about, they're not out there picketing demolition sites.

rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3975
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 273 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: The SA Politics Thread

#1079 Post by rev » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:55 am

Premier Steven Marshall has spent $244,000 of tax payers money on travel, $97,378 of which was for travel around Australia.

Primary Industries and Regional Development Minister Tim Whetstone $39,152 for an 11 day trip to Israel.

Apparently they've only racked up half a million dollars in travel at the tax payers expense, somehow better then Labor because it's only a quarter of what Labor cost us.

People who are paid 6 figure salaries paid by the tax payer, still need tax payer funded expenses on top?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest