Sensational-Adelaide.com

david wrote:

Mants wrote:Who would make a good mayor if Yarwood was not to contest?
Aside from him and Cr Malani, I rarely read anything positive regarding progress in Adelaide from many councillors. Most of them give off the impression of disenchanted retirees trying to cling onto their memories of Adelaide in years past.

I have no wish to be Lord Mayor but as a retiree I do my best to take a progressive view and to support the changes which the 2007 Council began to put in place and which are now coming to fruition.

I hope I am not seen as disenchanted, clinging on to my memories........... - frustrated at time maybe but not disenchanted - and I have done my best to explain what the Council is doing and to answer questions when put to me. I have also made strenuous efforts to lift the veils of secrecy on what the Council does, albeit with limited success!

By the way, Lord Mayors can run 2 consecutive terms (8 years) and Stephen Yarwood is coming up to the end of his first term as LM.

David Plumridge
Area Councillor.

David, I meant no offence. I will admit that I had other councillors in mind whilst making my comments. I personally appreciate your regular input and transparency on these forums, it is just a pity it doesn't extend to all of your colleagues. From what I can gather, you seem to be able to appreciate the benefits of many of council's good initiatives and policies since Yarwood has been mayor and you also seem to maintain a healthy balance between adopting progressive views and respecting heritage, which is important.
It is just a shame the council seems so viciously cut down the centre on several key issues which are real no-brainers. It does come across as counterproductive and frustrating for many of us. I would name Councillors Wilkinson, Hamilton and Moran as repeat offenders on this front, as these three in particular seem to want to perpetuate the stereotype that nothing happens in Adelaide.

And to add my two cents to the Frome St bikeway discussion...I catch the bus or drive into the city every weekday via Glen Osmond Road, and generally use any combination of Pultney/Frome/Hutt to do so. If the bikeway deters cyclists from using Pultney Street in particular to commute, then I am in full support of it. I have witnessed several close calls between cyclists and buses, and often I witness buses being held up behind slow cyclists for the entire length of Pultney St, which is incredibly frustrating for anyone who uses this service. Also, I personally would be more likely to commute into the city by bicycle once the Frome St bikeway is complete.

Waewick wrote:

ghs wrote:A couple of weeks ago I parked on Gouger street in a 15 minute zone. I
stayed for 20 minutes and returned to my car. There was an inspector standing
there. He did not put an expiation notice on my car and didn't say anything to me.
I drove off.

A few days ago I received an expiation notice in the mail. I rang the council
and they said I had been reported because I over - stayed by 7 minutes.

I've disputed the fine and stated that it's trifling because I was only over by a few minutes and the
inspector didn't even have time to print the expiation notice and put it on my car.

What do you guys think ?

pay the fine. You are in the wrong.

Nothing you can do about it unless they waive it.

Mate, if you were driving at 64 kmph in a 60 zone and the police gave you a fine, would
you be happy to pay it ?

There's an article in the paper today saying that the city council is cashing in every time
there's an afl game on at adelaide oval by giving out a heap of parking fines.

ghs wrote:Mate, if you were driving at 64 kmph in a 60 zone and the police gave you a fine, would
you be happy to pay it ?

No, wouldn't be happy (more at myself, not at whoever caught me) - but I'd acknowledge that I was in the wrong, and pay it.

Thanks for your comments Mants.

I do try to keep a balance which sometimes puts me on the wrong side of a debate. I was one of a group of about 6 of us who came on to Council in 2007. I worked closely with Stephen in developing many of the policies and initiatives which are really only coming into effect after 2 terms on Council. I was his Deputy for the first 2 years of his term and during thast time we worked very closely together.

Incidentally, by way of background, I was a Councillor on Salisbury Council foe some 33 years, 8 of them as Mayor of Salisbury, before retiring to live in the city. I saw Salisbury grow from a 'country-style' council of 33,000 people to a city of 11,000 when I left in 1998.

Whilst there are some more conservative councillors on council, they generally do not prevail and on the whole we work fairly well together. Remember that unlike State Government, we are 12 individuals with no party discipline to bind us together and so we are more often inclined to vote for or against an issue on its merits - which is what democracy is all about. It would be great to see a bigger voter turnout for LG elections and I hope the coming elections will deliver more community interest.

By the way, the North Adelaide parking revenue from events at the Oval falls far short of the costs of set-up, signage and policing of the regs which are working well for most NA residents and businesses. If you don't overstay you won't be fined - and we aare through U-Park offering special $6 parking deals in the city - not a bad deal by any standards.

David Plumridge AM
Councillor

ghs wrote:

Waewick wrote:

ghs wrote:A couple of weeks ago I parked on Gouger street in a 15 minute zone. I
stayed for 20 minutes and returned to my car. There was an inspector standing
there. He did not put an expiation notice on my car and didn't say anything to me.
I drove off.

A few days ago I received an expiation notice in the mail. I rang the council
and they said I had been reported because I over - stayed by 7 minutes.

I've disputed the fine and stated that it's trifling because I was only over by a few minutes and the
inspector didn't even have time to print the expiation notice and put it on my car.

What do you guys think ?

pay the fine. You are in the wrong.

Nothing you can do about it unless they waive it.

Mate, if you were driving at 64 kmph in a 60 zone and the police gave you a fine, would
you be happy to pay it ?

There's an article in the paper today saying that the city council is cashing in every time
there's an afl game on at adelaide oval by giving out a heap of parking fines.

Have to agree with Waewick on this one. It sucks when you get caught, but that's what happens when you play at the limits of what you think you can get away with. 7 minutes over in a 15 minute zone may not sound like much, but think of it in the context of it being 50% over the time limit for that space.

I got my first and only ever speeding fine this year just after the overpass on the end of the Port Expressway as you get into Port Adelaide. I came over the top right on the limit, then crept over coming down the slope. Was pulled over and given a ticket for 72 in the 60 zone. Frustrating as all hell, especially since it was an easy mistake to make, and it was obvious the police officer camped out there because lots of people would do the same thing.

I've found a perfect solution for beating the speed camera now though - rather than trying to push as close to the limit as I can, I make sure I'm treating the limit as an actual limit, not a recommendation, and every time I go down that slope now I'm at 60.

Lots of ACC news this morning...

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood seeks re-election (IMHO agree with all policies except the 40kph blanket limit.)

Adelaide City councillors seeking minimum 60 per cent pay rise (Just a coincidence this has been published at the same time as the above story, I'm sure...)

Issues: Adelaide needs to be streets ahead when it comes to bike lanes (Note the photo of the cyclist clad totally in black. As a cyclist, this makes me cringe.)

Maximus wrote:Issues: Adelaide needs to be streets ahead when it comes to bike lanes (Note the photo of the cyclist clad totally in black. As a cyclist, this makes me cringe.)

Also as a cyclist, it doesn't make me cringe. I wear black on days I feel like wearing black, safe in the knowledge that what I wear makes zero difference in whether drivers see me or not.
That said, I'd prefer the Advertiser didn't use such images as all it does is incite drivers in the comments to nit pick.

Great to hear the Lord Mayor will be running again though. Hopefully the media war on council initiatives don't hurt him too much, as we absolutely need to continue on this progressive path.

Nathan wrote:Great to hear the Lord Mayor will be running again though. Hopefully the media war on council initiatives don't hurt him too much, as we absolutely need to continue on this progressive path.

^this

I don't understand the lame constant whine coming from the media on progressive council matters.

Nathan wrote:Great to hear the Lord Mayor will be running again though. Hopefully the media war on council initiatives don't hurt him too much, as we absolutely need to continue on this progressive path.

I wouldnt worry too much, they're pandering to a fairly suburban crowd.

monotonehell wrote:

Nathan wrote:Great to hear the Lord Mayor will be running again though. Hopefully the media war on council initiatives don't hurt him too much, as we absolutely need to continue on this progressive path.

^this

I don't understand the lame constant whine coming from the media on progressive council matters.

Exactly. So far though we've had:
Victoria Sq: Whine
Rundle Mall: Whine
Frome St Bikeway: Whine
Leigh St closure: Whine
Speed Limit Trial: Whine
New Connector Service: Whine
Food Van Permits: Whine
Flat Rate (ie. cheaper) Uparks for w/ends & nights: somehow still whine
City Library: Whine (more about closing the two smaller libraries it replaces though)

Victoria Park has been really the only thing to go unscathed, and Splash Adelaide met with a shrug.

Anything else I've missed?

Nathan wrote:Great to hear the Lord Mayor will be running again though. Hopefully the media war on council initiatives don't hurt him too much, as we absolutely need to continue on this progressive path.

+1
Will be interested to see tenor, balance? of MSM news items on Council initiatives in the lead up to the next Mayoral election.
Not hopeful of a miraculous change from continued nitpicking, whingey, anti-progress/change agenda. I would love to see some positive news on urban design, place making initiatives, recognition of alternative approaches to ease traffic congestion incl safer, connected bike lanes.

The TDU, Festival Fringe (Croquet Club), Tasting Australia (Town Centre hub) events are just a few examples of the success of the first phase of the Victoria Square re-design adding to the revitalization of the city centre.

Just read this article in Treehugger, which reinforces the value of integrated transport and the need for bike lanes which connect...
'Transit Oriented Development is the key to better cities'
http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/ ... ities.html

Any ideas who might stand against Yarwood?
He ran a pretty impressive grassroots campaign last time and uses social media well.
Alas, I don't get to vote in ACC elections.

An extract below from a longer item in InDaily.
Stark contrast between vision of current Lord Mayor, Yarwood, seeking another term, and potential opponent in Cr Hamilton.

“New versus old”: Yarwood’s re-election pitch

Stephen Yarwood has begun his pitch for a re-election as Lord Mayor of Adelaide by outlining a platform of technology, trees and transport.
Yarwood said Adelaide could claim title of Australia’s ‘Silicon City’ by embracing high-tech car parks, free wifi and young entrepreneurs.

“There is no city in Australia that has claimed the mantle as being the silicon city,” he told InDaily. “We now have the best wifi network of any city in Australia [and] 50 per cent of the daily users of our CBD are under the age of 30.

“How we use that to attract start-up businesses, to attract global investment in our city [and] to generate new jobs is absolutely paramount.”
He said that the council elections – which will be run in October/November – would be “a debate about old Adelaide versus new Adelaide”.

..
Smart car parks, bike lanes and Frome Street

Yarwood said he would soon push for on-street trials of ‘smart’ parking technology in the CBD, supported by Adelaide’s wifi network.

These ‘smart’ carparks would include embedded sensors and camera systems to make it easier for commuters to find a car park and help authorities turn over car parks located near small businesses.
He told InDaily the concept was “an example of the fact that I’m not anti-car”.

Area Councillor Mark Hamilton is expected to challenge Yarwood for the position of Lord Mayor, and begs to differ.
Last week, Hamilton accused Yarwood of being “anti-car” and said he would push for bike lanes – including the under-construction separated lanes on Frome Street – to be scaled back across the city.

Yarwood said any prospective opponent would only create more congestion, not less, by allowing more space for cars over bicycles.
“Providing a single form of transport – i.e. cars – will only create a mono-culture of transport that will, in turn, induce more vehicles, which will then induce traffic congestion.”

...
Greening Adelaide

Yarwood’s vision for Adelaide as a ‘cosmopolitan city’ includes the continuation of a large tree-planting program across the CBD, which he said would be one of the main agenda items for his next term.

“Gawler Place, Grenfell Street, Pirie, Waymouth … these are all destinations that still need significant plantings of trees and I really want it to be a hallmark of my second term if I’m elected,” he said.

Read More - InDaily:
http://indaily.com.au/news/2014/04/30/y ... ther-term/

Hi David. I like everyone else on this forum, appreciate your presence on here. I am not a City resident, but am a university student doing a Planning degree. I would like to draw the attention of, well, everyone to your notes from Issue 109. You have provided a pretty accurate summary of the sentiment of many football (association football, not Aussie Rules) fans here in Adelaide and around South Australia for that matter. For the sake of discussion, I have cut out some paragraphs and kept the text relevant to the particular debate.

http://www.davidplumridge.com/images/do ... %20109.PDF

Cr David Plumridge wrote:

THE HIGH PRICE OF BREAD AND CIRCUSES
Taxpayers have paid almost $600 million dollars to wipe out SACA's debt and build the SACA and the SANFL a new stadium and it is reported that Port and the Crows are being charged $200,000 to play in this half a billion dollar taxpayer funded stadium. And it’s worth remembering that the Stadium Management Authority is a sub-lessee of the Minister who is in turn a lessee of the Adelaide City Council.

THE HIGH COST OF BEING A SOCCER FAN IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Meanwhile, in stark comparison, Adelaide United will this year pay $800,000 to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre (AEC) for the use of Hindmarsh Stadium!! Adelaide United applied for management rights to Hindmarsh but as it turned out AEC was offered the management rights by the State Government (the same one that "donated" half a billion of taxpayer’s money to footy and cricket). AEC has been ordered by the Government to recover costs on Hindmarsh so why doesn't the government similarly demand recovery of costs on Adelaide Oval from Footy and cricket?

You may think of this as a minor issue, but I suspect that soccer fans don't, because the reality is that the World Game is being run into the ground while footy and cricket are getting major tax-payer assistance. Enjoy your Oval!

Up until July 2013 (when the AEC took over) Adelaide United FC were charged somewhere around $20,000 per match for the use of Hindmarsh Stadium. This deal was the best of any club in the A-League and to break even on matchday, the club only needed to attract a crowd of 11,000.

Post-takeover this figure has not been disclosed. It is believed to have been a significant increase, closer to around $40,000. The issue for the club and football fans with Hindmarsh is not the cost of the rent, but the return on this cost. The AEC is ultimately a taxpayer-funded organisation, so it is disappointing to see over half a billion spent on Adelaide Oval while Hindmarsh received nothing. On many occasions and particularly early this year, the club have not even been allowed to train at the stadium, being forced to use other grounds not suited for the intensity and style of training: http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/ade ... 2314/88090 (read especially the letters linked in the article).

To be fair to the AEC, they are going to invest their own money into Hindmarsh, installing a lift to provide better access in the western stand (grandstand). They have also mentioned the possibility of installing all red seats - which, although it would look good, is far from a priority and should be the last thing installed at the stadium. If at all, Coopers as main sponsor should cover this cost.

I would also like to point out that the State Government are foolish for not investing in AUFC and the round ball code in this state. Football has the greatest reach of any sport in the world and AU enjoy significant support from Indonesia, Hong Kong, Japan, Spain and elsewhere - something that the Crows, Port, Redbacks and the Strikers will never be able to boast or claim. United's Round of 16 match in their 2012 Asian Champions League campaign against Nagoya Grampus attracted 22 million viewers on television. To compare, the AFL Grand Final gets somewhere around a measly 2-3 million.

Here are some calculations. Consider that this would provide an ideal scenario if everything was fair and deliberated:

Average Crows home attendance (broadly speaking), 1997-2013: ~35k.
Average Port home attendance (again broad), 199-2013: ~25k.
TOTAL: ~60k.
Average AUFC crowd, 2003-2014: ~10-11k. Let's round down, just for the sake of calculations (lifetime average home crowds for AU are closer to 11k).

Therefore,

AU attract 1/6 of the total AFL crowd, and should be - if all was fair - benefactors of 1/6 of that $565 million.
So, $565 million/6 is $94.1 million. Where's our money, State Government?

I am neglecting the upgrades to AAMI over the years as well as any other related government handouts.

---

For the record, I was highly in favour of the Oval redevelopment and am a Port Adelaide fan and member, but do feel that the AFL should have footed part of the bill.

Isn't the new Hindmarsh deal with Adelaide United still one of the best in the A-League.

Adelaide United have nothing to complain about IMO.