Wasn't one of the proposals too tall for the ACC?Ben wrote:rev wrote:You do realize he sat on the site and kept it vacant as a way of giving the Adelaide City Council the middle finger, and rubbing it in their faces that there is this blight on the landscape....right?
Not that I agree with it..
But look at it from his point of view, that of a developer. Imagine how frustrating it must have been dealing with the nimrods at the City Council.
I'm sure that if any one of us were a billionaire, we too would decide to stick it to them as well by keep a large block of land empty with an ugly mismatched fence in a prime location like that.
The current proposal has been approved since 2007 and the ACC have actually never refused a development on that site contrary to what he would like you to think.
And something I just thought of, let's say he did open up that space as a "green space" and slapped a playground on it and some benches, maybe a park bbq too.
Since it would technically be private property, who would be liable, insurance wise, if say some kid fell off playground equipment that was broken?
Or what if someone stepped on a used syringe and contracted HIV or hepatitis?