News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[Waewick]

Hopefully discounts for smoke-free outdoor dining areas will be a more popular move than 3 am closing was!
(both of which I fully support)
David
DLM

Could you please explain why you think closing the city down at 3AM is a good idea?

Why should the vast majority of young people such as myself be punished for the actions of a small minority?

yes I look forward to the explanation, I'm sure it will be backed up by some sort of fact.

[Vee]

Hi David,

Well that's ...
+1 for smoke free outdoor dining areas
- 1 for 4 hour closure of pubs, clubs, starting at 3am
... from me.

[[Shuz]]

David,

As an ex-smoker, I support the move to offer discounted alfresco licenses for smoke-free dining areas. It's a good move towards a healthier environment and a more pleasant dining experience for everyone.

However, as a young person, I vehemently oppose the 3am closure.

What is so hard about closing Hindley Street off to traffic on Friday and Saturday nights? How hard is it for the ACC to put up a few road cones at either end of the street, and let the rest work out for itself? I see many benfitis for such little cost;

• People would have all the space at their leisure to travel along the street. They won't interfere in other people's space as much, as currently experienced due to the constraints of the small-width footpaths.
  
  Clubs will benefit from better line management, and will help with the above issue, also.
  
  Police would benefit from having the street entirely to themselves to patrol and attend to disturbances much more promptly, without competing against traffic to get a squad car or police escort on time.
  
  Buskers could play in the middle of the street, creating 'hotspots' of activity, contributing to an overall safer and more pleasant atmosphere.
  
  With taxi ranks already in ample supply and provision in the surrounding area, people can still access cab services at the Morphett Street rank, Casino rank, KWS rank, Grenfell Street, etc.

Anyone else, feel free to add any ideas of your own against the 3am closure. ACC, I will not go down without a fight.

[Ben]

I also agree with incentives to ban outdoor smoking and wholeheartedly DISAGREE with enforcing pubs and clubs to close at 3am. What a backwards move!

I wouldn't get too worked up though guys once they notice the problems of kicking everyone onto the streets at the same time i'm sure sanity will prevail and it will be reviewed.

[Waewick]

agree 100% with closing off Hindley Street during Friday and Saturday nights

I would also suggest that a place like the bottom of lights square gets turned into a "meeting place" with a focus on it being the pick up and drop off part of the precinct

it already has the turning lane just before Hindley street, provides close access to the whole west end and could be easily upgraded to suit and easily monitered.

[cruel_world00]

Looks like Sydney has got the right idea for China Town. Hopefully we can see more investment of this type in our own version.

http://bit.ly/qKKxSo

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CMA2wUHBGg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5CMA2wUHBGg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>[/youtube]

[cruel_world00]

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood was on Breakfast with Tim Brunero on Radio Adelaide this morning to discuss the council's push for 3am closure.

http://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress ... m-closure/

[david]

To answer Shuz and others who are not happy with Council's (and my) position on licensing hours in the West End all I can say is that on the balance of all the evidence, 3 am closing is a lot more effective in reducing alcohol-related crime, than 4 am. Incidentally, Council will not determine this - it will be the State Government.

The most compelling evidence can be found in the SAPOL Report "Alcohol and Crime" commissioned in December 2009 and released in mid-2010. It can be found on SAPOL's website (sorry, I can't get the link to work for me).

It is a very well-researched report and well worth looking at if you are serious about safety and good amenity in the West End. Certainly the well-behaved are suffering because of the behaviour of the few but the number of incidents of crime and injury are very high and in my opinion, quite unacceptable to me as a councillor who is very concerned about safety in the city.

Let's not forget that in this precinct we now have hundreds of students and other residents, we have a growing Uni campus and we need to facilitate a day-time economy with other traders trying to operate in this locality. Many young people don't come near the West End for fear of having an good night out spoiled by the frequent occurences of unacceptable behaviour by an unruly minority.

Like so many things in life, a balance has to be struck and this is where Councillors and others have to make difficult decisions. Certainly there are physical changes that can be made and have been trialled such as closing Hindley Street to traffic at week-ends. We are putting more monet into managed taxi ranks and we are urging the State Government to increase public transport services to the area.

I have to admit that I am an older guy but quite a few of my Council colleagues are younger (actually, they all are!) and share the concerns I have tried to explain in this post. We didn't all vote for the 3 am closing time but we are all concerned about the up-turn of alcohol-related crime and the need to ensure a safe environment for ALL who choose to come to the city for their entertainment.

David
DLM

[Pants]

So people don't get pissed before 3am David and having them exit licenced venues en masse at the same time won't just add to the scope for violence?

You say that you need to ensure a safe environment. This won't do it. At most call last drinks at 3am, but don't have everyone leaving at the same time looking to make their own fun and arguing over taxis etc. Better yet, how about using the money that will be employed to try and bring order to taxi ranks etc to increase the police presence in the area and let people leave when they want to?

This is a draconian measure that lets the dickheads win and will both drive people away from the CBD at night and send the message that Adelaide folds up the footpath when it gets too late.

[Waewick]

I agree violence = Bad

the question has to be asked then, why were entertainment sensitive developments allowed in the entertainment precinct of the city? perhaps a bit of foresight would have be useful to the council - or were these developments allowed to occur without appropriate measures given their location in the premier entertainment precinct?

I just find it strange that the big cities of the world seem to able to have entertainment precincts which have housing close to it yet little old Adelaide needs a 3am curfew - actually even some of the small ones do as well.

To me it appears people are hiding behind "violence" in an attempt to hide more poor planning practices or the inability to plan for the future when high density will meet entertainment/business precincts.

I look forward to seeing how the council and government deal with this when the entertainment venues start moving around the city instead of one place.

[Will]

David, thanks for your response, however I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

As others have mentioned, such a measure will not make things safer, but will instead have the opposite effect, as already drunk people (yes, people drink before 3:00AM), will ALL be forced out at the same time. Considering there is no public transport at that time, I can foresee increased violence as thousands of people jostle for taxis at the same time. I am baffled as to how you cannot foresee this.

Furthermore, I am curious as to your comment that currently some young people stay away from the CBD because of the violence. Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? Because I have never met anyone who has stopped visiting the city because of the 'violence'. Sure, there is the occasional brawl, but Hindley Street is hardly Baghdad.

Also, I am very concerned at your excuse that a curfew should be implemented because Hindley Street now has residential properties nearby. Hindley Street should be an entertainment precincnt first and foremost. It is imperative that it remain so. It will be an embarassment to Adelaide if we allow new residents to shut down the city early. The CBD and in particualr should never be treated as a sleepy dormitory suburb. It is a place that should be loud and colourful. People should be warned about this before they decide to live in the city.

This proposal is just a lazy solution to a much more complex problem.

What we should be doing is ensuring people drink alcohol responsibly and to take responsibility for their actions. This is what is missing here. You are punishing everyone for the immaturity of a few.

[mshagg]

What we should be doing is ensuring people drink alcohol responsibly and to take responsibility for their actions. This is what is missing here. You are punishing everyone for the immaturity of a few.

That might actually require somebody to think outside the square. You might have to reassign police to proactively anticipating any violence instead of spending all their time checking venue capacity. You might have to do something about drugs in the area or consider the attitudes of security staff (protip: if you're a boof head looking to punch on, all you have to do is know a bouncer or two and you're free to behave however you want). Clearly the nanny state response is a broad sweeping and uproportionate measure like this.

I live in the precinct and spend my weekends in the supposedly dangerous streets of the city's west end in the wee hours of saturday and sunday morning. Heck, it's one of the reasons i live there - it's the only place where one can revel all night long (which is a sad enough indictment on Adelaide as it is). The reports and statistics make it sound like an epidemic of violence as the west end descends into anarchy, but I simply dont see it. No one i know does. And it is this aspect which is most disappointing, but so typical of the nanny state, that hardly a single person who is vested with the authority to make this decision (save from the state's former treasurer) will have ever set foot in the west end past 3am on a weekend. It probably does look bad on a statistics report - but come and see it for yourself and tell me it's so bad that the only choice you have is to shut the area down.

Such a backwards step for a city that desperately needs to keep moving forward. It fits right in with our image of "old people and churches"; it's the kind of move that suggests we deserve the moniker of a backwater

How can cities like Melbourne, with some ~4 times our population (ive lived there - Lonsdale st at 4am makes Hindley St look like Disneyland), manage these problems better than we can? What is so unique about Adelaide that means the only viable option we have is to shut the place down?

[[Shuz]]

I note that my post was deleted.

Not happy Jan.

[metro]

How can cities like Melbourne, with some ~4 times our population (ive lived there - Lonsdale st at 4am makes Hindley St look like Disneyland), manage these problems better than we can? What is so unique about Adelaide that means the only viable option we have is to shut the place down?

I wouldnt look at Melbourne as the example, the powers that be over there are considering introducing the 3am lock out there too + fines for bad language, and this is coming from a LIBERAL government

We'd be better to look at how real cities like Sydney, London, Paris, Tokyo, New York etc manage their night life.

[Will]

More dissapointing news from the ACC.

From the Messenger:

Council fight for four-hour break in pubs and clubs

Council26 Jul 11 @ 09:30am by Alice Higgins



Adelaide City Council Mayor Stephen Yarwood will look at writing to ratepayers for a mandatory four-hour break in pubs and clubs. Photo: Luke Hemer


TOWN Hall will consider ramping up its campaign for a four-hour mandatory break in trade for city pubs and clubs when it meets tonight (Tuesday, July 26).

City Council will consider lobbying the State Government, the Opposition, minor parties and independents in the Legislative Council to amend the Draft Liquor Licensing Bill to match its position.

Under the proposal, Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood would also write to ratepayers and Police Comissioner Mal Hyde to reinforce the council’s stance.

The City Messenger reported this month the council had backed a 3am to 7am shutdown for city pubs and clubs - an hour longer than the State Government’s proposed 4am to 7am break.

The government last July revealed plans to force pubs and clubs to close from 4am to 7am under a raft of clampdowns aimed at curbing alcohol-fuelled brawls in and around licensed premises.

The Bill remains before Parliament