News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[ChillyPhilly]

Oh for crying out loud Mutt. It's about balancing various transport options. Whilst they are discouraging private car use slightly, it is not being eliminated. If you absolutely insist on driving so you don't have to breath the same air as all the poor unwashed, then you're still welcome to.

That's pretty much sums up a good response to Mutt's reply. Cultural shifts and changes don't happen overnight. You can't just ban the use of cars outright, they are a necessity in Adelaide. You have to start by reducing the dependency.

[SRW]

Perhaps if the Government was prepared to suffer a loss with public transport for the next 5 years or so, subsidise it to the point where it is so cheap that it really compeats with private transport even for short trips, just to get the masses using it, then generally decrease the subsidies as the volume of people using it allows it to better pay for itself. Of course this is only looking at one aspect: cost. No matter how cheap it is, people will not use it if it is unsafe or unreliable, but an increase in service could also be part of the loss sustained for the long term gain.

Not sure if you were implying that Adelaide Metro is run at a profit at now.

From what I remember a single adult trip ticket pays for approximately 75% of a bus ride and 50% of a train ride. The rest is made up by the government.

I'm surprised if it's that high, to be honest. Contrary to what I've seen a few people ludicrously claim in a couple threads recently, public transport is not a profitable business for government. It's actually a big expense, which is part of the reason governments have been disinclined to invest for so long. The price we pay for our tickets doesn't even cover the cost of the trip; fare recovery of operating costs is generally between only 30-40% across Australian systems. This doesn't even make mention of capital costs, which are wholly subsidised by government.

[Ben]

IMO including Sunday is a big mistake. This is a day when public transport services are at their lowest. There goes the idea of spending the day in the city with the family..

Big mistake.

From The Messenger:

Carpark fees rise for Sunday shoppers

30 May 12 @ 12:22pm by Chloe Kennedy

CITY shoppers will pay up to $30 to park in some U-Parks on Sundays, after the $5 flat rate was scrapped by City Council as part of a trial.

The council will trial the fee change at its Rundle St, Gawler Place and Wyatt St U-Parks for three months from July 1.

The trial, which aims to entice more people into the city for short-term shopping and dining, allows shoppers to park for three hours or less at a flat rate of $6 every day of the week.

However, shoppers will pay $25 for the fourth hour and $30 for five hours or more.

Previously, they only had to pay a flat rate of $5 on Sundays.

Elected members voted on the trial fees at last night’s meeting.

Cr Houssam Abiad, who initiated the trial, told the meeting it was important to include Sunday in the trial to ensure a cohesive marketing strategy.

People who park for three hours or less will save up to $6 a visit under the trial.

[Will]

IMO including Sunday is a big mistake. This is a day when public transport services are at their lowest. There goes the idea of spending the day in the city with the family..

Big mistake.

From The Messenger:

Carpark fees rise for Sunday shoppers

30 May 12 @ 12:22pm by Chloe Kennedy

CITY shoppers will pay up to $30 to park in some U-Parks on Sundays, after the $5 flat rate was scrapped by City Council as part of a trial.

The council will trial the fee change at its Rundle St, Gawler Place and Wyatt St U-Parks for three months from July 1.

The trial, which aims to entice more people into the city for short-term shopping and dining, allows shoppers to park for three hours or less at a flat rate of $6 every day of the week.

However, shoppers will pay $25 for the fourth hour and $30 for five hours or more.

Previously, they only had to pay a flat rate of $5 on Sundays.

Elected members voted on the trial fees at last night’s meeting.

Cr Houssam Abiad, who initiated the trial, told the meeting it was important to include Sunday in the trial to ensure a cohesive marketing strategy.

People who park for three hours or less will save up to $6 a visit under the trial.

I completely agree Ben, so much so that i think the reverse should apply. Parking in the city on Sunday should be free for the first 3 hours and then $5 thereafter.

[AdelaideAlive]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/fole ... 6390079562

Foley: Sacking council back on agenda

The Adelaide City Council is up to its old tricks, writes Kevin Foley.
--------------------------------------------------
IT would come as no surprise to readers that I've never been a big fan of the Adelaide City Council.

Whenever there has been a suggestion that governments should sack the council and replace it with an authority, I've always stuck my hand up in support.

Both Michael Atkinson MP and I were the only members of the Shadow Cabinet in 1995 wanting to support the then-Liberal Government's move to scrap it.

Throughout my time as Treasurer, I had many a run-in with the ACC - most notably was its appalling decision to oppose a permanent grandstand for racing and motorsport in Victoria Park.

Other bizarre positions the council has taken include opposing the encroachment of the new Adelaide Oval development on to the parklands, wanting to ban visitor parking in the South Parklands to the Adelaide Show, criticism of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital taking up parts of the parklands, and the expansion of Adelaide High School on to any part of the parklands on West Tce.

Believe it or not, an earlier ACC decision stopped the Adelaide High School gym being built to an official basketball court size as it would have taken over a few extra metres of parklands.

Despite improvements with a good mayor (at last), and a very good CEO I have been softening my attitude to the ACC.

However, just when I thought progress was being made, I heard an appalling and bizarre decision the council recently made.

Late last year, the Sunday Mail revealed a council idea to build a 10,000 sq m, six-inch thick bitumised surface in the west parklands to suit Cirque du Soleil and other music events.

I guess not too many people paid much attention to that report - myself included - as surely the gatekeepers of the parklands would not support such a massive, ugly development.

However, I was leaked some confidential council minutes this week and sent a transcript of an ABC interview by Matt and Dave with ACC councillor Anne Moran.

She is an anti-development councillor from North Adelaide and the leader of the "Save the Parklands From Any Development" mob.

Now it seems that the idea to build a 10,000 sq m bitumen slab in the west parklands is a goer.

According to the leaked minutes, talks are well advanced, a budget has been put aside and, with just a few minor issues to be resolved, it will get the go-ahead.

Little or no consultation has occurred with residents of the nearby western suburbs. But, then again, why would they?

This is yet another selfish decision taken by the ACC to look after the wealthy residents of the southeastern corner of the city.

According to Moran on radio: "We have sort of made a deal with ourselves that we'll put everything down there - that will be the one-stop shop so that we will spare the rest of the parklands."

She added :"We'll do our best to get something that doesn't look too awful-looking when they are not there."

You have got to be kidding - 10,000 sq m of bitumen, and you hope to make that look pretty?

This decision from a council that has opposed every sensible, well thought-through attempt to enhance the amenities of our parklands has totally dumbfounded me.

Of course, the cynic in me sees this for what it really is. Build a huge bitumen ugly slab in the far western parklands, with the noise, swamping Mile End, Torrensville and Thebarton.

The residents of the southeastern corner of Adelaide - especially the East Tce folk - are saved from the noise and impact of such events.

This decision smacks of hypocrisy in the extreme and the selfish class-based decision-making of the Adelaide City Council goes on.

Sacking the council is back on the agenda for me

[Nathan]

How can it be inflicting it on the western suburbs, when Ellis Park is separated from them by multiple rail lines and Santos Stadium?
I don't see the issue at all with the event space, it's a fairly unused part of the parklands at other times, and by establishing the space it means events have better facilities, have faster set-up and take-down, and have less impact on the parklands.

[Will]

From the City Messenger:

Splash Adelaide making comeback

Council20 Jun 12 @ 11:47am by Chloe Kennedy


Artist Thom Buchanan with his chalk drawing, which was part of the City Council's Splash Adelaide initiative earlier this year. Picture: Luke Hemer



SPLASH Adelaide will return later this year, with the City Council hoping to partner with local entrepreneurs to expand the program.

Outdoor dining on Chesser and Leigh streets, food vans and deckchairs in the city's main squares will make a comeback when the program returns in October.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said planning for the next Splash Adelaide a concept trialled last summer to bring more life to the city had already begun.

"We have had an overwhelming number of enquiries from entrepreneurs and small businesses who want to get involved," Mr Yarwood said. "We are calling all entrepreneurs to provide business ideas to make the city a more enjoyable destination."

The City Council released a report this month on the success of the first Splash Adelaide program, which ran to bring more life to the city.

It listed a 162 per cent increase in foot traffic on Chesser St from January to March as one of its biggest successes.

Splash Adelaide also made it easier for street vendors to operate by waiving fees and slashing red tape.

"We have learnt a lot of lessons," Mr Yarwood said.

"There were some major successes but also some things we didn't do too well."

Mr Yarwood said the council would look at the placement of the food carts to avoid creating competition for existing businesses.

"Not placing a coffee cart next to a coffee shop is something we need to be more vigilant about," he said.

The council will use part of its $1 million City Activation fund to pay for Splash Adelaide and will call on the State Government for further funding.

Tum Tum the Halloumi Van owner Josie Clothier started up her van during Splash Adelaide when the council waived trading fees.

"It has been wonderful for someone such as myself who spent four years pouring money into my dream of having a mobile food van," she said.

"It has actually allowed me to start the business."

What did you think of Splash Adelaide? Go to our website at citymessenger.com.au to tell us

[rev]

How can it be inflicting it on the western suburbs, when Ellis Park is separated from them by multiple rail lines and Santos Stadium?
I don't see the issue at all with the event space, it's a fairly unused part of the parklands at other times, and by establishing the space it means events have better facilities, have faster set-up and take-down, and have less impact on the parklands.

Mate I could hear the Future Music festival from my mates place in Renown Park, so I can only imagine residents in suburbs on the western parklands doorstep could hear it with a little bit more clarity.
Not that I'm against such festivals and events. I'm all for them.

What Foley is doing is highlighting the ridiculousness of the council and their hypocrisy and double standards.

They are against any form of major event in Victoria park for example, for among other reasons, noise levels for residents.
They are against any form of development to support such events and the local economy, because they say an architecurally designed grand stand and function center would have ruined the parklands.

However they have no problem passing on the noise problem to other suburbs and their residents.
They have no problem paving 10,000sqm of the western parklands.

Is a giant slab of bitumen more attractive then a professionally designed grand stand, that more then likely would have taken into account "green" issues and sustainability?

The council is a joke. That's the point.

[crawf]

However they have no problem passing on the noise problem to other suburbs and their residents.
They have no problem paving 10,000sqm of the western parklands.

Is a giant slab of bitumen more attractive then a professionally designed grand stand, that more then likely would have taken into account "green" issues and sustainability?

The council is a joke. That's the point.

This.

Meanwhile I noticed the back wall underneath the Morphett St bridge is now covered in graffiti. I'm guessing this is the other replacement for Topham Mall?

[Nathan]

Meanwhile I noticed the back wall underneath the Morphett St bridge is now covered in graffiti. I'm guessing this is the other replacement for Topham Mall?

Yes, that is the new free wall.

[david]

Notes from Councillor Issue 77.doc - Changed Meeting Arrangements - NAIDOC Week Celebrations - Carbon Price and the Council - 2012-2013 Business Plan and Budget - Recent DAP and Council Decisions

Councillor David Plumridge's Notes - Issue N0 77

David Plumridge
Acting Lord Mayor
Adelaide City Council

[Reb-L]

Just had a look at David P's minutes from the latest council meeting. My reaction to this (see below) - apart from that local government should not waste its resources on federal politics or critisizing interstate governments trying to keep taxes down - is to ask why Council could not find those efficiency gains etc. without the imposition of a carbon tax. Just concentrate on keeping the streets clean and safe and the rates down - don't waste your time on stopping development or getting involved in interstate politics. Just some advice from a grumpy ratepayer.

"CARBON PRICE AND THE COUNCIL
There has been much speculation – and no small amount of fear-mongering – about the impact of the carbon price on Local Government operational costs. The estimated cost to Adelaide City Council for the coming year is in the order of $1m which Council has been able to absorb due to efficiency gains and reduction of our energy usage. It is interesting to note that the NSW Government – despite its strident attacks on the Carbon Tax – has decreed that NSW Councils can only increase their rates by a meagre 0.4% to cover the impact of Carbon Pricing - and the LGA of SA suggests the figure would be in the range 0.5% to 0.8%. Council will review the figures in our 1st quarter review when the picture should be clearer."

[Wayno]

Reb-L, this below throw away comment of yours belong on AdelaideNow, not here.

don't waste your time on stopping development or getting involved in interstate politics. Just some advice from a grumpy ratepayer

Re. the carbon tax impact, Clr Plumridge is just bringing a degree of sanity to the debate. It's good news the ACC is absorbing the cost by further reducing their energy footprint (which they were already chipping away at pre-carbon tax).

[SRW]

Reb-L, perhaps you missed the disclaimer in David's newsletter that "any views expressed herein are those of Cllr Plumridge and do not purport to be those of the Adelaide City Council". He is a public person and is entitled and well-placed to make comment on issues affecting local government either here or interstate, and doesn't deserve the gripes for doing so.

[Reb-L]

Reb-L, perhaps you missed the disclaimer in David's newsletter that "any views expressed herein are those of Cllr Plumridge and do not purport to be those of the Adelaide City Council". He is a public person and is entitled and well-placed to make comment on issues affecting local government either here or interstate, and doesn't deserve the gripes for doing so.

I have no intention to deny anybody their right to express an opinion (I happen to do that myself at times). And yes, I actually saw the disclaimer (in red) at the bottom of the newsletter. But I guess it was more what it said in the letterhead at the top ("COUNCILLOR" & "ACTING LORD MAYOR - CITY OF ADELAIDE ") that could be interpreted anyway, by somebody with a vivid imagination, as being the publicly expressed views of the elected representative of the city council. Whether they are private or not, once they are made public
people will say what they think about it - just as you can come back at them if it's not up your alley.