Sensational-Adelaide.com

ok here's my argument for why Gawler and Victor harbor should be counted as Adelaide. I went to a party at Gawler last night and I asked a hot chick "so when you meet a person from interstate, where do you say you're from?" she replied "Adelaide, because Gawler is a shithole and I'd rather be assosiated to somewhere much more intersting" this guy from Victor harbor who was in our group agreed with her.

In conclusion, gawler and victor harbor should be included into the metro area due to the fact that their towns aren't as cool as us and they want to be like us. argument over

ps: Describing demographical data works really well with the chicks. They actually reply to me when I ask them a question!! eg: "What?" or "piss off"

Couldn't have said it better myself

Nice result for SA
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... enDocument

Second lowest population percentage growth is a nice result?

You only need to look at the growth figures from the past 5-10 years and see that this is a good result.

Should be pointed out that SA is the only state that had a positive increase in growth, QLD and WA had the biggest drop in population growth.

dsriggs wrote:Second lowest population percentage growth is a nice result?

If SA were a country we would have the second best population growth of all developed countries just behind Australia. Have a look at the population growth rates of European countries for example. Some of them are even going backwards.

So yes 1.3% per annum is a good result.

Whinging about this is as arrogant as a millionaire on Victoria Avenue at Unley park whinging that someone else on the street has a better mansion.

Will wrote:

dsriggs wrote:Second lowest population percentage growth is a nice result?

If SA were a country we would have the second best population growth of all developed countries just behind Australia. Have a look at the population growth rates of European countries for example. Some of them are even going backwards.

So yes 1.3% per annum is a good result.

Yeah, but if all the states were countries then we'd still have the second-worst in the region...

Growth is growth but I wouldn't get carried away spinning this result - we're seventh out of eighth in growth compared to the other states and territories, and when we add only 21,000 vs. ACT adding 6,500 then we should be asking what we can do to improve our image and encourage more people to move here. And the hidden figures are how many people are actually leaving. We probably have many more people arriving but all the people leaving shrinks that figure down towards Canberra's level.

Splashmo wrote:

Will wrote:

dsriggs wrote:Second lowest population percentage growth is a nice result?

If SA were a country we would have the second best population growth of all developed countries just behind Australia. Have a look at the population growth rates of European countries for example. Some of them are even going backwards.

So yes 1.3% per annum is a good result.

Yeah, but if all the states were countries then we'd still have the second-worst in the region...

Growth is growth but I wouldn't get carried away spinning this result - we're seventh out of eighth in growth compared to the other states and territories, and when we add only 21,000 vs. ACT adding 6,500 then we should be asking what we can do to improve our image and encourage more people to move here. And the hidden figures are how many people are actually leaving. We probably have many more people arriving but all the people leaving shrinks that figure down towards Canberra's level.

The growth level of 21 000 already factors in the net loss from interstate migration. And no, we wouldn't have the second worst in the region. Our population growth rate would surpass that of NZ.

I am really saddened that despite having increased our population growth rate from 0.5% just 5 years ago to 1.3% (a rise of more than 100%) people still spin the results into something negative.

Will wrote:The growth level of 21 000 already factors in the net loss from interstate migration. And no, we wouldn't have the second worst in the region. Our population growth rate would surpass that of NZ.

I am really saddened that despite having increased our population growth rate from 0.5% just 5 years ago to 1.3% (a rise of more than 100%) people still spin the results into something negative.

Just trying to be realistic - we've made improvements but we've still got a long way to go if we want the state to power ahead. It shouldn't be about patting ourselves on the back and leaving it there.

I'd love to see more breakdowns of this data, for example here is the percentages of our population broken into a few age groups. No surprise here that SA is behind the national average in the sub-40 age groups. So although people say "Adelaide's a good place to raise kids", it appears you're more likely to be doing that in Qld or WA. I wonder how this has changed over the last several years?
Likewise, the net interstate migration shows that the state continues to lose people interstate (21,000 arrivals vs 24,000 departures), although fewer than in the past few years. It'd be interesting to see how that divides by age group.

Mt Barker expansion 'ignores basic planning'
SHERADYN HOLDERHEAD From: AdelaideNow July 05, 2010 10:20pm
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5888243371

THE State Government plan to double the size of Mt Barker ignores basic planning fundamentals of community infrastructure and services, the council says.

Mr Barker mayor Ann Ferguson will now send an urgent letter to Planning Minister Paul Holloway to convey to the council's position on the Ministerial Development Plan Amendment released last month and the reasons it is not supported.

At a meeting tonight, the council agreed unanimously not to support the DPA that would see the combined Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne townships double in population to almost 50,000 in 15 years.

Ms Ferguson said as it stands the amendment could not be supported by a responsible council that cares for its current and future community.

"The District Council of Mount Barker will not support the current Ministerial DPA because it ignores and overlooks the most basic planning fundamentals of community infrastructure and services," she said.

"Such massive and rapid growth will put enormous pressure on health, education, public transport, waste water and road works and will create a host of negative impacts.

"There is nothing in this Ministerial DPA about how those who live in any of these new houses will be able to walk to a local school, play in a local park, swim in a local pool, flush a toilet, tap into mains gas or gain access to transport links."

Ms Ferguson said she would urge Mr Holloway to prepare a structure plan before land is re-zoned so that it:

DEMONSTRATES integrated planning and sustainable outcomes.

CONFIRMS a sound process to guarantee community and recreation facilities, infrastructure and services.

ALLOCATES responsibility for implementation.

"This council does support managed and sustainable growth and has demonstrated its ability to undertake managed growth with effective infrastructure development and productive partnerships with developers and state agencies," she said.

"There is no staging for the development of such a large amount of land - more than 1300 hectares - and this makes it impossible to map out the orderly provision of infrastructure."

The council's decision follows the chief executive Andrew Stuart's comments to The Advertiser last month, when he said the DPA was premature.

The council's interim response follows a series of external and internal expert reports and foreshadows a full and final submission that will be referred before the August 4 deadline.

Ms Ferguson said the council was dismayed at the State Government's consultation process, which did not offer basic information sessions.

"Council has had to take the initiative to fill the void to help our residents have their say on a DPA instigated by the State Government," she said.

A series of six workshops will be held at the Mt Barker Bowling Club this week with the first held at 10am Tuesday, July 6. Refer to the council's website for further details.

Public submission can be made until August 4 and should be sent to The Presiding Member, Development Policy Advisory Committee, Mount Barker Urban Growth DPA, C/-Department of Planning and Local Government, GPO Box 1815 Adelaide SA 5001, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to (08) 8303 0627.

Adelaide's regional status robbing rural areas of skilled migrants
Daniel Wills, Bryan Littlely From: The Advertiser July 04, 2010 11:29pm
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5887787001

ADELAIDE has crippled expansion of the state's rural centres and should be stripped of its regional skilled migration status to unlock economic growth, country mayors say.

As the Federal Government yesterday flagged development of "second capitals" to manage the forecast population boom, regional leaders said Adelaide's unique status stopped many skilled workers from settling in country areas.

Mt Gambier mayor Steve Perryman and Port Augusta mayor Joy Baluch yesterday called for an overhaul of migration regulations.

The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme lowers visa requirements, making it easier for employers in designated "regional" cities to fill jobs. Adelaide is the only "regional" mainland capital.

Mt Gambier Mayor Steve Perryman said the state's population plan needed a greater focus on regional centres.

He said Adelaide "should never have been allowed to have regional status in the first place" and the designation should be revoked.

"The fact that Adelaide is recognised as regional under the program is an impediment to the South-East and the other regions in the state," he said. The South-East faced skills shortages in the areas of health, diesel mechanics, accountants and engineers.

Port Augusta Mayor Joy Baluch said governments should be "pulling out all stops" to ensure skilled migration to the Upper Spencer Gulf region. "You can't get a plumber, carpenter or electrician and if you are lucky enough for one to ring you back, you might have to wait months," she said yesterday.

"I'm sick to death of Adelaide being a city state. There is little consideration given to regional centres for all services - health, education, transport."

Federal Sustainable Population Minister Tony Burke yesterday said Australia must abandon its "ad hoc" planning and focus on growth of "second-tier" cities. But he said Canberra should not "dictate" which communities were targeted for growth.

"You don't have to go far to find examples of mismatch between where people are needed most and where they have settled," he said. "There are two ways to approach it. Either each level of government can blame the other or we can work together and co-ordinate these issues in ways we've never managed to do in the past."

University of Adelaide Professor Graeme Hugo heads a high-level federal government advisory panel on population growth.

Yesterday he said significant expansion of burgeoning SA towns must be considered to solve problems of urban sprawl and resource shortages in Adelaide.

"We're looking at the extent to which there can be regional decentralisation," he said. "In South Australia, we've got to look at the South-East as a potential area for some growth and the mining activity in the north is another one that provides a focal point for regional development. Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie are also possibilities."

Under the State Government's 30-Year Plan, more than half a million extra residents are expected to flood into the Greater Adelaide region by 2040. Port Lincoln Mayor Peter Davis said his city suffered from water and power shortages and would struggle to support a bigger population.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Evans yesterday said alternative visas were available to employers looking to fill vacancies in industries with skills shortages.

The Federal Government had no immediate plans to revisit Adelaide's status as a regional centre, he said.

SA Industry and Trade Minister Tom Koutsantonis said he was "satisfied that our regional status is working well to attract migrants, particularly those with skills that strengthen our workforce".

iTouch(myself) wrote:ok here's my argument for why Gawler and Victor harbor should be counted as Adelaide. I went to a party at Gawler last night and I asked a hot chick "so when you meet a person from interstate, where do you say you're from?" she replied "Adelaide, because Gawler is a shithole and I'd rather be assosiated to somewhere much more intersting" this guy from Victor harbor who was in our group agreed with her.

In conclusion, gawler and victor harbor should be included into the metro area due to the fact that their towns aren't as cool as us and they want to be like us. argument over

ps: Describing demographical data works really well with the chicks. They actually reply to me when I ask them a question!! eg: "What?" or "piss off"

the only flaw in that approach is that Adelaide is generally regarded as a shithole interstate and Gawler is unknown

What was this thread about again?

Come on people, think before you post...