Who is paying for the flood mitigation?
P.K. wrote:A privately set up subdivision in an area where there is currently nothing would have to be cheaper than to buy up existing properties, renew the aging water supply systems and redeveloping, surely.
NO. The aging water, sewer, gas and electricity infrastructure still needs to be upgraded. Adelaide already has more infrastructure than it can afford to maintain. Building new infrastructure further out only makes the problem worse.
P.K. wrote:And as for the other, the plans include a medical centre, and school. Public transport exists already in virginia, it could be as simple as extending a bus route by 5 kilometres.
Our public transport system is already struggling because of our low population density. Schools and medical centres whether public or private attract govt funding.
P.K. wrote:It is because of developments like this that Adelaide is a far better place to live than Sydney or Melbourne, for example west lakes, goldern grove, mawson lakes.
Crime ridden Golden Grove, plastic West Lakes and the next Elizabeth make Adelaide a better place to live than Sydney of Melbourne?
P.K. wrote:This development is not about keeping the vibe and buzz of adelaide alive, its about giving people somewhere to live. Its up to the individual if they want to shop in the city or suburbs.
P.K. wrote:Adelaide can’t remain a sleepy hollow forever, if that’s what you want, then maybe you should move to a small country town.
Make up your mind P.K. If we keep building satellite country towns Adelaide will remain a sleepy hollow.
P.K. wrote:Who is subsidising this development? I dont remeber Mike Rann standing up and saying we're going to put another 1 billion dollars into this project, no, because its not subsidised by taxpayers, its a private development!
They are all hidden subsidies. In NSW they have calculated these hidden subsidies and in some locations they are as high as $100,000 which they are now trying to pass on to the developers. If inner city brownfield sites were subsidised by $100,000 per block we would have affordable inner city housing without the social and environmental costs of urban sprawl.
P.K. wrote:Was everyone against the mawson lakes development?
The money spent on Mawson Lakes would have been much better spent on revitalising Elizabeth and Salisbury.
P.K. wrote:I do not claim to be the state treasurer or similar but I think the government will spend more money over the next few years repairing underground plumbing in the older develloped suburbs than they will at Buckland Park and mawson lakes combined because of materials and methods used.
The old stuff still needs to be repaired.
P.K. wrote:The only difference to this and every other subdevelopment is the size, of course someone is going to make money out of it, its why people invest money in realestate, and because of its size some people are going to make a lot of money, good luck to them.
Did anyone stop delfin because they were going to make a heap of money out of west lakes? what about the individual who bought a house on delfin island so many years ago and is selling it to make a huge profit now, are they bad people?
There is nothing wrong with people making money but if the govt is subsidising the profit they should get something desirable in return. New developments outside the urban growth boundary are not desirable.
P.K. wrote:Good for veggies, not out there its not, all the good land is closer to port wakefield road, yeah thats right, virginia grove estate is on prime horticultural land, how come no one is complaining about that?
All of my comments above also apply to Virginia Grove Estate.
