Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:05 pm

If they are going to be so dramatically reducing the types of facilities offered to the public then I think the council should take it to open tender. If the Crows have the best offer then so be it, but perhaps some other organisation or business could offer more public services.

Yes, this is the interesting point of these unsolicited proposals. How are we supposed to test that we're getting the best offer? Perhaps an open tender period is necessary.

Open tender ?
Like any offer outside the crows would give a toss what the council or the local nimbys want.
Council doesn't want to run it maintain it or spend money on it then it should shut the Fuck up
The council will always own the land
Any use of it will be as a lease
It's the best deal they're gonna get otherwise it's another lecornus........

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:37 pm

Open tender ?
Like any offer outside the crows would give a toss what the council or the local nimbys want.
Council doesn't want to run it maintain it or spend money on it then it should shut the Fuck up
The council will always own the land
Any use of it will be as a lease
It's the best deal they're gonna get otherwise it's another lecornus........

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Jeez mate, did someone disturb your sleep?

It's a no from me.

A big, fat, whopping no.

This kind of proposal should not even be entertained - in any form.

The Crows are a private entity. Private entities have no place in the Parklands. The Parklands are a public asset to be enjoyed by all people.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:26 am

It's a no from me.

A big, fat, whopping no.

This kind of proposal should not even be entertained - in any form.

The Crows are a private entity. Private entities have no place in the Parklands. The Parklands are a public asset to be enjoyed by all people.

So I guess you're opposed to the Casino expansion and Festival Plaza then?

The ACC also should also tell us their position on the Aquatic centre if the Crows plans don’t proceed. Ideally the place needs to be flattened and completely rebuilt but that’s unlikely (Marion cost around $100m some 10 years ago). So what are the alternative options and likely outcome if we take the Crows out of the equation?

What public pool does the Prospect Council operate for its residents?

Patrick_27 wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:26 am

It's a no from me.

A big, fat, whopping no.

This kind of proposal should not even be entertained - in any form.

The Crows are a private entity. Private entities have no place in the Parklands. The Parklands are a public asset to be enjoyed by all people.

So I guess you're opposed to the Casino expansion and Festival Plaza then?

Not really comparable.

ChillyPhilly wrote:

Patrick_27 wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:26 am

It's a no from me.

A big, fat, whopping no.

This kind of proposal should not even be entertained - in any form.

The Crows are a private entity. Private entities have no place in the Parklands. The Parklands are a public asset to be enjoyed by all people.

So I guess you're opposed to the Casino expansion and Festival Plaza then?

Not really comparable.

It is just on a smaller scale


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I understand the need to address the current scenario with the Adelaide Aquatic Centre. Deteriorating facilities, high maintenance costs etc. Not sure if the Adelaide Footy Club offering 1 lap pool is the solution.

For the Adelaide Crows, i think that Thebarton Oval offers a potential solution. Room to upgrade facilities and a swim centre next door that could also be upgraded / replaced to provide the local community with a like for like asset. Also centrally located.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:26 am

It's a no from me.

A big, fat, whopping no.

This kind of proposal should not even be entertained - in any form.

The Crows are a private entity. Private entities have no place in the Parklands. The Parklands are a public asset to be enjoyed by all people.

In general I agree. But I also don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This is a degraded facility that will cost the community $21 million to remain viable. Even to decommission, demolish and remediate will cost $7 million. While I am amenable to that outcome, $7 million could do other important things.

So I'm open to a private entity (and tbh, the Crows are about as public as they are private) wanting to spend their own money to provide community amenities and increase (net) open space, even if the trade-off is some private training area. IMO, the important thing is that we ensure the investment (and community dividend) is commensurate with the intrinsic value of the parkland they'll be located on. But I'm not immediately convinced that this initial proposal does that.

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:

Patrick_27 wrote: So I guess you're opposed to the Casino expansion and Festival Plaza then?

Not really comparable.

It is just on a smaller scale


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

One attracts visitors, tourism and investment, even if a hedonistic and capitalist place. The other will not.

ChillyPhilly wrote:

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:Not really comparable.

It is just on a smaller scale


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

One attracts visitors, tourism and investment, even if a hedonistic and capitalist place. The other will not.

So what
Each case is different and built to purpose and will only happen with private money
The aquatic centre will be bulldozed otherwise , at least this way the public will have access to a new built facility
What a stupid statement

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:

citywatcher wrote:It is just on a smaller scale


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

One attracts visitors, tourism and investment, even if a hedonistic and capitalist place. The other will not.

So what
Each case is different and built to purpose and will only happen with private money
The aquatic centre will be bulldozed otherwise , at least this way the public will have access to a new built facility
What a stupid statement

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Someone definitely disturbed your sleep.

ChillyPhilly wrote:

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:One attracts visitors, tourism and investment, even if a hedonistic and capitalist place. The other will not.

So what
Each case is different and built to purpose and will only happen with private money
The aquatic centre will be bulldozed otherwise , at least this way the public will have access to a new built facility
What a stupid statement

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Someone definitely disturbed your sleep.

Good point
We'll argued


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk