Sensational-Adelaide.com

what's the average salary for an ACC Councillor?

SFA which is why you get mostly retired or semi retired councillors on all councils in this state.

Many have made the very valid point that with the Council's desire to raise the population of the CBD by significant numbers - the new figure seems to be a 50% increase, there is an apparent increasing need for Up. The south-east and south-west corners seem bereft of either clear land or large dilapidated buildings that would suit enough low-rise townhouses and apartments to meet this target - in other words, either the Council somehow forces developers to spend lots of money buying out many properties over a large land area, or they allow developers to make better use of their smaller sites with increased height restrictions in appropriate areas.

urban wrote:SFA which is why you get mostly retired or semi retired councillors on all councils in this state.

Whats "SFA"?

Hoops wrote:

urban wrote:SFA which is why you get mostly retired or semi retired councillors on all councils in this state.

Whats "SFA"?

haha - i do believe urban was implying the councillors don;t earn much cash at all - Sweet F@#k All

Wayno wrote:

Hoops wrote:

urban wrote:SFA which is why you get mostly retired or semi retired councillors on all councils in this state.

Whats "SFA"?

haha - i do believe urban was implying the councillors don;t earn much cash at all - Sweet F@#k All

Exactly

Wayno wrote:what's the average salary for an ACC Councillor?

$14000 per annum for a councillor plus sitting fees for some external appointments - such as DAP - for some members.
David

Wayno wrote:

david wrote:Councillor Stephen Yarwood's motion got more support than the vote suggested.
Other Councillors were anxious to wait and see how the updated Development Plan of 2006 impacted on CBD development especially through the Mixed Use Zones and other incentives to better developments.
And believe it or not the majority of the new councillors are not anti-development!
Just give us time - remember Rome wasn't built in a day!

hi david, can you please provide more information...sounds like you have some unpublicised knowledge?

As a councillor, I supported Stephen Yarwood's move for increased height limits. For me it is a matter of returning to the old 'core and frame' principle with greater heights in the CBD core where for me the limits are really only practical limits (and airport restrictions) whilst respecting the residential precincts as currently zoned.
Stephen also proposed increased heights on the parkland edges which might be more contentious although increased heights on East Terrace (up to 5 floors) seem to have worked quite well.

The trouble is that changes to the Development Plan take time and resources both of which are limited!

I believe that Council will have to do a complete Sec 30 review in 2009 so we may have to be patient. Last year Council approved over $1 billion worth of new development and already this year we are on track to exceed that.

David

rogue wrote:

david wrote:Councillor Stephen Yarwood's motion got more support than the vote suggested.
Other Councillors were anxious to wait and see how the updated Development Plan of 2006 impacted on CBD development especially through the Mixed Use Zones and other incentives to better developments.
And believe it or not the majority of the new councillors are not anti-development!
Just give us time - remember Rome wasn't built in a day!

Is this Mr David Plumridge AM?

Yes!
David

david wrote: <snip>
As a councillor, I supported Stephen Yarwood's move for increased height limits. For me it is a matter of returning to the old 'core and frame' principle with greater heights in the CBD core where for me the limits are really only practical limits (and airport restrictions) whilst respecting the residential precincts as currently zoned.
Stephen also proposed increased heights on the parkland edges which might be more contentious although increased heights on East Terrace (up to 5 floors) seem to have worked quite well.

The trouble is that changes to the Development Plan take time and resources both of which are limited!

I believe that Council will have to do a complete Sec 30 review in 2009 so we may have to be patient. Last year Council approved over $1 billion worth of new development and already this year we are on track to exceed that.

David

David, very much appreciate the fact you have chosen to engage with us. Look forward to chatting with you and your colleagues on a variety of topics. I must insist that you get yourself a better username though - how about "The Plumster"

I was reading about what was happening with San Jose, CA at the moment. They've got a 300ft (91.4m) height limit across their downtown. The reason for this is because San Jose International Airport is in close proximity to the downtown area. Now like Adelaide Airport, the flight traffic does not usually go directly over downtown.. however, there is a 'one engine rule' that says if an engine goes out on some of these long haul flights then the emergency flight path can be used. The emergency flight path (much like Adelaide CBD) is across the San Jose Downtown. So the San Jose council has been locked in discussions with the operators of San Jose International Airport, and are trying to convince them to shift the emergency flight path by 3-8 degrees, or have the operators fly at different times/weights to avoid going over downtown.

The San Jose Airport guys brought in a consultant at $250,000 to work on the idea. And he's mentioned that the issue isn't a safety issue but an economic issue from the airport's point of view. Not allowing 5-10% of their jets to run over the Downtown will cost them money.. but at the same time it's not sustainable for the council either as they realise they're not realising the full impact of developments in the city.

The council have also said if they can have unrestricted heights over their "triangle zone" (much like our vic square central cbd area), built up of a few high skyscrapers that would enable them to return some more land to parks (e.g. taller blocks surrounded by lots of parks is a big thing in the states).

They're set to review heights next month... it could go either way for them. But alot of companies such as Adobe, eBay, etc have setup offices in San Jose and alot more want to join them.. it'll be a matter that'll have alot of impact for the downtown district and the city.

Howie wrote:I was reading about what was happening with San Jose, CA at the moment. They've got a 300ft (91.4m) height limit across their downtown. The reason for this is because San Jose International Airport is in close proximity to the downtown area. Now like Adelaide Airport, the flight traffic does not usually go directly over downtown.. however, there is a 'one engine rule' that says if an engine goes out on some of these long haul flights then the emergency flight path can be used. The emergency flight path (much like Adelaide CBD) is across the San Jose Downtown. So the San Jose council has been locked in discussions with the operators of San Jose International Airport, and are trying to convince them to shift the emergency flight path by 3-8 degrees, or have the operators fly at different times/weights to avoid going over downtown.

The San Jose Airport guys brought in a consultant at $250,000 to work on the idea. And he's mentioned that the issue isn't a safety issue but an economic issue from the airport's point of view. Not allowing 5-10% of their jets to run over the Downtown will cost them money.. but at the same time it's not sustainable for the council either as they realise they're not realising the full impact of developments in the city.

The council have also said if they can have unrestricted heights over their "triangle zone" (much like our vic square central cbd area), built up of a few high skyscrapers that would enable them to return some more land to parks (e.g. taller blocks surrounded by lots of parks is a big thing in the states).

They're set to review heights next month... it could go either way for them. But alot of companies such as Adobe, eBay, etc have setup offices in San Jose and alot more want to join them.. it'll be a matter that'll have alot of impact for the downtown district and the city.

hmmm, interesting. I think Downtown San Jose is in a worse situation (proximity to airport) than Adelaide. The runway appears to be almost directly aligned with the CBD precinct - and only 3-4km from the end of the runway! At least here in Adelaide we are 5-6km away and displaced by a ~20degree angle from the normal flightpath...

Well, I looked onto Google Earth.

San Jose Airport flight paths runs pretty much straight over the CBD, and from the edge of the runway, to the closest edge of the CBD is about 5.5km.

Adelaide Airport flight paths runs straight over North Adelaide, not the CBD but, the distance is marginally closer 5km from edge of runway to the closest edge of North Adelaide CBD, let alone the flight path variant to the closest edge of the Adelaide CBD (North Tce/West Tce intersection) is at least 20 degrees.

Now, in the San Jose case, they compromised a 3-8 degrees shift in emergency flight path from the normal. Even in Adelaide's case, this would STILL not affect the CBD, as there is a good 12-17 degrees of 'emergency' space left.

Unlimited height for Adelaide. I rest my case.

Could be an interesting inclusion into ACC Submission.....

rogue wrote:Could be an interesting inclusion into ACC Submission.....

I'd like to write alot of that.. but we don't have much space. Do you guys think we can summarise that in one paragraph?