Sensational-Adelaide.com

Bob wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:31 am

As people from the council areas of Prospect, Walkerville & Charles Sturt seem to be the most vocal about keeping the Aquatic Centre as is, maybe their councils should contribute to the ongoing running costs? Or ACC could charge double the entry price to cover the current losses?

For the politicians that want to keep the Aquatic Centre as is, then arrange for the State Govt to pick up the tab for the $$$ shortfall, in both the new investment required and the ongoing running costs.

Agreed. If it was in the center of the city then it would be different as it would bring people into the city, but in its current location it's actually harder for many rate payers of the city to get to than it is for others in surrounding suburbs.

For those that say a sporting club shouldn’t manage a part of the parklands with infrastructure, then why has the Adelaide Bowling Club been allowed to do exactly that, and for many decades?

It's a public facility that seems to serve its primary purpose of being a bowls club for people to come and enjoy first and foremost with minimal impact on the parklands.

For those that say business should not be allowed on parklands, well what is the Casino, IHG hotel, and the new companies doing at Lot 14, just to site a few of many examples?

Those are perfect examples of how once the parklands and public spaces are turned over to private operators they rarely return.

There needs to be a balanced view of the AFC draft proposal with all its positives & negatives, not just extreme positions.

Exactly. There should be an open and informed debate, and since private development generally ends up as a one way street that debate should involve discussion of long term vision for the park lands, how their unique nature can benefit the state, and how we want to leave them for future generations to enjoy.

That petition doesn't do that either, so while I'm very dubious about handing valuable public land over to a private company simply because they were the first to ask for it, I won't be signing it.

Nort wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:09 am

Bob wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:31 am

As people from the council areas of Prospect, Walkerville & Charles Sturt seem to be the most vocal about keeping the Aquatic Centre as is, maybe their councils should contribute to the ongoing running costs? Or ACC could charge double the entry price to cover the current losses?

For the politicians that want to keep the Aquatic Centre as is, then arrange for the State Govt to pick up the tab for the $$$ shortfall, in both the new investment required and the ongoing running costs.

Agreed. If it was in the center of the city then it would be different as it would bring people into the city, but in its current location it's actually harder for many rate payers of the city to get to than it is for others in surrounding suburbs.

For those that say a sporting club shouldn’t manage a part of the parklands with infrastructure, then why has the Adelaide Bowling Club been allowed to do exactly that, and for many decades?

It's a public facility that seems to serve its primary purpose of being a bowls club for people to come and enjoy first and foremost with minimal impact on the parklands.

For those that say business should not be allowed on parklands, well what is the Casino, IHG hotel, and the new companies doing at Lot 14, just to site a few of many examples?

Those are perfect examples of how once the parklands and public spaces are turned over to private operators they rarely return.

There needs to be a balanced view of the AFC draft proposal with all its positives & negatives, not just extreme positions.

Exactly. There should be an open and informed debate, and since private development generally ends up as a one way street that debate should involve discussion of long term vision for the park lands, how their unique nature can benefit the state, and how we want to leave them for future generations to enjoy.

That petition doesn't do that either, so while I'm very dubious about handing valuable public land over to a private company simply because they were the first to ask for it, I won't be signing it.

The Adelaide Bowling Club is a private club consisting of paid members, it has a lease on a section of the parklands, public can only use its facilities as per their rules which requires payment for the activity, it also has a liquor license.

The Adelaide Football Club is a private club consisting of paid members, it wants a lease on a section of the parklands, public will be able to use its facilities as per their rules which will require payment for the activity, it is not applying for a liquor license.

I have no problem with open debate and there is in a couple of weeks, a public debate at the North Adelaide Community Centre, if people want to try their hand at putting their positions forward, best to come properly prepared.

Cutting to the chase what does the forum think the actual outcome will be at the end of this? Does the forum think the critics are more vocal and pro-active and will succeed or is the AFC and it's supporter base too strong/powerful and will get their way? To me it all kind of feels like deja-vu with the debate for a permanent pits/grandstand building at Victoria Park. It will be interesting to see the outcome and the publics position/mentality and if it has changed in the past 20 years.

The former RAH site should be used for an expanded Botanic Garden

Bob wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 8:31 am

As people from the council areas of Prospect, Walkerville & Charles Sturt seem to be the most vocal about keeping the Aquatic Centre as is, maybe their councils should contribute to the ongoing running costs? Or ACC could charge double the entry price to cover the current losses?

For the politicians that want to keep the Aquatic Centre as is, then arrange for the State Govt to pick up the tab for the $$$ shortfall, in both the new investment required and the ongoing running costs.

As a Charles Sturt ratepayer, I would be absolutely on board with the council contributing to the aquatic centre. (I feel the same about the inner councils contributing to the parklands too). That said, as a central facility for the entire metro area, the state government should, yes, be at least partially funding it as well.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:16 am

Cutting to the chase what does the forum think the actual outcome will be at the end of this? Does the forum think the critics are more vocal and pro-active and will succeed or is the AFC and it's supporter base too strong/powerful and will get their way? To me it all kind of feels like deja-vu with the debate for a permanent pits/grandstand building at Victoria Park. It will be interesting to see the outcome and the publics position/mentality and if it has changed in the past 20 years.

There is no easy answer to that question.

The AFC put forward a basic vision, the problem is some elements have pulled out their 'NO' placards, even though the ACC, the AFC and State Govt all agree there is much more work to be done on the detail for the final proposal. All the AFC did was present the vision to the ACC upon which the ACC gave the go ahead for the AFC to continue to the next stage of preparing the full proposal for everyone's consultation, including the public.

For example, I think the debate in NA in a couple of weeks is just the ACC showing consideration for the public by providing an additional avenue to vent their spleen on the topic even though ( as mentioned above), there is no final proposal to debate at this time, only a vision. Think Q&A on ABC, plenty of opinions but not much comes out the other end.

Putting the use of the parkland debate aside, what people have to come to grips with is that the Aquatic Centre will likely close within a few years without additional funding coming from outside the ACC. The AFC vision / proposal could turn out to be its saviour, but without the full detail it is very hard to know the outcome.

Have people moved on from the Vic Pk grandstand mentality? The Save the Parklands team haven't, but the general public may have, if they can be sold on the concept, but for that there is a long, long way to go yet.

I think this debate eptomises everything wrong with the South Australian Psyche.

We have a dilapidated asset with not many options to fix it, the AFC offer a win/win.

Unfortunately the South Australian way is the reject things that might benefit others slightly more than they benefit us or worse knock them back if they benefit others but no me directly.

We've seen it countless times before and we will see it again, thats why we as a state are stagnant and have been for 30+ years.

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:21 pm

I think this debate eptomises everything wrong with the South Australian Psyche.

We have a dilapidated asset with not many options to fix it, the AFC offer a win/win.

Unfortunately the South Australian way is the reject things that might benefit others slightly more than they benefit us or worse knock them back if they benefit others but no me directly.

We've seen it countless times before and we will see it again, thats why we as a state are stagnant and have been for 30+ years.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Is having years of no centre at all while they demolish and rebuild a win? Is getting less facilities back than we currently have a win? Painting everyone who opposes the proposal as some kind of luddite and the epitome of what's wrong in this city is pretty unfair.

I think the ACC should also give us their position now if the AFC proposal doesn’t go ahead. ie would they then spend $20m repairing it or say $50m on building a new swimming centre (or $0 and just close it down and/or demolish it)?

Questions over legality of Crows park lands HQ

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... -lands-hq/

Nathan wrote:

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:21 pm

I think this debate eptomises everything wrong with the South Australian Psyche.

We have a dilapidated asset with not many options to fix it, the AFC offer a win/win.

Unfortunately the South Australian way is the reject things that might benefit others slightly more than they benefit us or worse knock them back if they benefit others but no me directly.

We've seen it countless times before and we will see it again, thats why we as a state are stagnant and have been for 30+ years.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Is having years of no centre at all while they demolish and rebuild a win? Is getting less facilities back than we currently have a win? Painting everyone who opposes the proposal as some kind of luddite and the epitome of what's wrong in this city is pretty unfair.

I may or may not have tried to take some poetic licence with my whinge

"We won't be bullied" on Aquatic Centre revamp: Hyde

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... vamp-hyde/

Bob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:50 am

"We won't be bullied" on Aquatic Centre revamp: Hyde

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... vamp-hyde/

The Crows project absolutely should not occur, and if the State Government and neighboring councils don't want to fund the aquatic centre, shut it down and demolish it. Given it's isolated location the centre brings minimal if any economic benefits to North Adelaide.

The crows are a private members based organisation, not a public organisation. Gifting them effectively $40m of land to build a private club facility - run privately and that provides public access only via a cost to be determined by said private organisation is just madness. I would question the $15m the crows (again a private members organisation) have been given by the Federal government to build a landmark facility in a seat that could be in play in future federal elections is certainly given the current unfolding political scandal.

This is not North Terrace, or Adelaide oval where the development of parklands has a long historic precedence. What is to stop after this precedent being set some developer in the guise of another sports club or members organisation saying "me too" and demanding that they are allowed to build their own privately owned and operated facility within the parklands - that the public can access... for a fee?

This is not about being anti development, this is about recognising the importance of preserving Adelaide's greatest natural asset - its parklands from development so when Adelaide is a city of 2m, 3m etc. our decendents can thanks us for giving them such an incredible public green-space. Adelaide does not have a harbour or river of note, we have our parklands - let's not piss them away to every developer that comes knocking.

JAKJ wrote:

Bob wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 05, 2020 10:50 am

"We won't be bullied" on Aquatic Centre revamp: Hyde

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... vamp-hyde/

The Crows project absolutely should not occur, and if the State Government and neighboring councils don't want to fund the aquatic centre, shut it down and demolish it. Given it's isolated location the centre brings minimal if any economic benefits to North Adelaide.

The crows are a private members based organisation, not a public organisation. Gifting them effectively $40m of land to build a private club facility - run privately and that provides public access only via a cost to be determined by said private organisation is just madness. I would question the $15m the crows (again a private members organisation) have been given by the Federal government to build a landmark facility in a seat that could be in play in future federal elections is certainly given the current unfolding political scandal.

This is not North Terrace, or Adelaide oval where the development of parklands has a long historic precedence. What is to stop after this precedent being set some developer in the guise of another sports club or members organisation saying "me too" and demanding that they are allowed to build their own privately owned and operated facility within the parklands - that the public can access... for a fee?

This is not about being anti development, this is about recognising the importance of preserving Adelaide's greatest natural asset - its parklands from development so when Adelaide is a city of 2m, 3m etc. our decendents can thanks us for giving them such an incredible public green-space. Adelaide does not have a harbour or river of note, we have our parklands - let's not piss them away to every developer that comes knocking.

The northern parklands, which are next to unused and spend half of the yellow and dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand/accept your points JAKJ. I am not aligned either to or against the AFC proposal. I am neutral. However what I am thinking about is how to get a new Aquatic centre built for the benefit of all the public without the burden being on the ACC and it’s ratepayers.

So what if the operation of any new proposed Aquatic/ Sports centre is put to open tender by the ACC (so before it is built). So whoever is successful in the tender agrees to fund and maintain it. So the AFC can compete and submit their proposal against the open market, would this then be more acceptable?
Or
If the AFC (or anyone else) agree to fund and also maintain any new development (as you suggest the Govt and/or other councils do) but with the building and it’s operation gifted to the ACC, would this then be acceptable? So the ACC are in exactly the same position (actually far better) as now.
However in lieu of this the AFC (or anyone else) doing this it is able to lease a portion of the building/oval that they require say for a peppercorn rent for 99 years.
Thoughts?