Sensational-Adelaide.com

I just get pissed off, when these people treat the park lands as their private area.
If their best interest are for all the SA people, why is there no compromise from them. It is either their way or the high way e.g. Victoria park grandstand. Now they have the same attitude for this new stadium development. The people that live in North Adelaide, around victoria park race course,etc want to keep their own interest at hand e.g. keeping the vic park private and free of the public, no development in North Adelaide or the city that blocks their views and disturbs their peace. To my ears, that attitude sounds pretty selfish and not in the interest of 'all SA people'. That's why i get pissed with them.

Will409 wrote:I was hoping I would never (I mean never) have to say this but we need some 'northern subrurbs justice' on this lot.

Just say the word

monotonehell wrote:

Brando wrote:
I am really, really getting tired, frustrated and sick to death of this idiot. He has gained momentum and confidence after the state government backed down over Vic Park. This is getting beyond the joke. We really need to start getting our voice out there more as a pro development group.
These council members....How for the life of me, can this not be seen as a conflict of interest when their casting votes will not be in the best interest of ALL South Australians.

I'm sorry, but enough is enough.

What about their actions do you object to? Their objectives actually sound fairly sane:
• the Parklands should be available for use by the general public
• the public should, so far as practicable, have free and unrestricted access to the Parklands
• the Parklands should be reserved as a place for public recreation, leisure and enjoyment
• alienated areas of the Parklands are restored for recreational use, preferably as open space
• the character of the Parklands as a place dividing the City of Adelaide from the suburbs should be preserved
• the Parklands should be preserved and maintained in a manner that enhances their special place in the design of the City of Adelaide
• the amenity of the Parklands is not impaired by inappropriate development of nearby lands

They're against any development of the parklands that lock away areas for private use. That sounds reasonable.

I must admit to being fairly ignorant about what they actually have done, other than to object to the Vic Park horse racetrack upgrade. Have they done anything that isn't "in the best interest of ALL South Australians"?

(Nb that's not a rhetorical question, I'm looking for what they've done that has you so upset)

Like i said, i do beleive that they have good intentions. To complain about development on the railyards because it is parklands!!! Come on. That is not right at all. These people need to realise that we don't want all the parklands gone, i like and want the majority of the parklands belt retained. It should not be given up for the sake of any development. No way, but proposals that can be tourist attractions, add vibrance and has economic value and inportance for ALL South Australians. The Vic Park debacle was shocking. I'm not saying the state government handled things the best, the ACC certainly didn't, but i thought the proposal was fair and added value to that area of parklands and would encourage more use of those parklands. After all isn't that what they want? The government offered a fair deal and would have returned any area of parklands lost.
They clearly are now setting their sites on anything that will encroach on the parklands. They feel they now have more power and will make more noise, because that's all they know they have to do in this state.

The APPA are upset about all parklands development, including everything on the north side (adelaide oval, the zoo, railyards, etc) and desire it to be returned to it's original design (i.e. grass, trees, paths). They are thinking looong term (100's of years).

Don't get me wrong, the sensational-adelaide discussion group is excellent but has no public nor political impact in its current form. Contrast it against the APPA (very high profile) and even those people who respond to AdelaideNow newpaper articles - at least they manage to get followup articles published that publically highlight the majority sentiment (e.g. original article on adelaidenow says "shall we build a stadium", followup article a few days later says "90% of people want a stadium")

Consider answering this fundamental question ==> Do you want the S-A forum to continue unchanged, or become a well respected pro-development group?

While I do think the parklands are important and should be retained, I think that the APPA has other intentions as well. Fact is, the Vic Park proposal would have added parklands to the area, and would have upgraded it to a higher standard of parkland. I think they are more annoyed that the building might encourage other people outside the CBD to use it more often, and then they can't use it just for themselves. They seem very selfish indeed, refusing to discuss and solve issues, but rather just have it their way, the way they want to see it.

I wouldn't have a problem if this was a minor group voicing their opinion, but their influence in the ACC and they way they brought the State Government to its knees is not right. It smells like corruption on the council's behalf.

Anyway, that's my

Wayno wrote: Consider answering this fundamental question ==> Do you want the S-A forum to continue unchanged, or become a well respected pro-development group?

I would like to see us get a solid foundation of facts, truth, history etc behind us and become more of a pro development voice. We have the North Adelaide Society, APPA, the residents of Glenelg. Too many groups and associations that jump up and down and be heard. If something was to be done it would need to be in a way that can be taken serious and valid.

Their intentions are confusing.

They want to preserve the parklands for....?

Keep the trees and grasses is one of their intention.

Open for public use is also another of their intention.

For the future generations is also another of their intention.


Is not this asking too much? First, they want to keep the trees and grasses, fair enough for the environment, but as far as my interest goes, I am not attracted or have the intention to use the parklands at all.

What can I use the parklands for where there are virtually nothing for me to utilise? As if we don't already have enough playground for the kids?

And how confident are they that the future generations would not demolish the parklands to make way for buildings and developments? Or are they only confident that as long as they are still alive, it would not be demolished or make way for developments?

Selfish? No?

Parklands should be preserved, but not all. For Victoria Park lands which had already been long developed into a sports venue, there is physically nothing wrong to upgrade the area with better facilities. If your house is so run down would you not want to repair and upgrade it so that you can continue to live in it or would you rather let it deteriorate just because you want to preserve it?

I agree with Norman, sometimes, they are just too selfish for themselves.

Edgar wrote:Is not this asking too much? First, they want to keep the trees and grasses, fair enough for the environment, but as far as my interest goes, I am not attracted or have the intention to use the parklands at all.

"For people are not attracted to nothing."

Latest Poll Results, as at 11.00am 22/02/08

Do you want a major sports stadium located in inner-city Adelaide?

Yes - ASAP 87% (1935 votes)
No - keep crowds/traffic out 3% (83 votes)
Yes - for ALL sports inc V8 racing 4% (102 votes)
No - extend AAMI Stadium 4% (98 votes)

Total of 2218 votes

The people have spoken!

There could be a poll with 500,000 people saying yes to a new stadium, but with the way things are currently running in this state, the couple of hundred APPA votes would still win over.

Brando wrote:

Wayno wrote: Consider answering this fundamental question ==> Do you want the S-A forum to continue unchanged, or become a well respected pro-development group?

I would like to see us get a solid foundation of facts, truth, history etc behind us and become more of a pro development voice. We have the North Adelaide Society, APPA, the residents of Glenelg. Too many groups and associations that jump up and down and be heard. If something was to be done it would need to be in a way that can be taken serious and valid.

I'd rather not be labelled pro- or anti-development. Either places those named into an extreme point of view. Brando's sentence started out well...
"I would like to see us get a solid foundation of facts, truth, history etc behind us..."
That's what I'd like to be labelled, someone who on a case by case basis looks at a proposal and judges its worth on its merits...

omada wrote:Latest Poll Results, as at 11.00am 22/02/08

Do you want a major sports stadium located in inner-city Adelaide?

Yes - ASAP 87% (1935 votes)
No - keep crowds/traffic out 3% (83 votes)
Yes - for ALL sports inc V8 racing 4% (102 votes)
No - extend AAMI Stadium 4% (98 votes)

Total of 2218 votes

The people have spoken!

'The people' have answered a question; "Does you wants a sportz stadium?" without much detail. There's a hundred questions that need to be asked and answered before you can say YES! to such a question. Some of which we've explored on this forum. That poll may as well be asking "Do you want an icecream?" or "Who wants to be a fireman?" without some ideas of what the question is actually proposing any yes or no answers at this point are poorly informed answers.

Already we've seen that the proposed rail yards site is not suitable for a world class stadium, we've seen that a soccer only stadium would lie unused for much of the time, and would make Hindmarsh somewhat redundant.

I'm all for development, but only when it makes sense, we already have the Wine Centre as an example of what not thinking about something gets us.

monotonehell wrote:

Brando wrote:

Wayno wrote: Consider answering this fundamental question ==> Do you want the S-A forum to continue unchanged, or become a well respected pro-development group?

I would like to see us get a solid foundation of facts, truth, history etc behind us and become more of a pro development voice. We have the North Adelaide Society, APPA, the residents of Glenelg. Too many groups and associations that jump up and down and be heard. If something was to be done it would need to be in a way that can be taken serious and valid.

I'd rather not be labelled pro- or anti-development. Either places those named into an extreme point of view. Brando's sentence started out well...
"I would like to see us get a solid foundation of facts, truth, history etc behind us..."
That's what I'd like to be labelled, someone who on a case by case basis looks at a proposal and judges its worth on its merits...

omada wrote:Latest Poll Results, as at 11.00am 22/02/08

Do you want a major sports stadium located in inner-city Adelaide?

Yes - ASAP 87% (1935 votes)
No - keep crowds/traffic out 3% (83 votes)
Yes - for ALL sports inc V8 racing 4% (102 votes)
No - extend AAMI Stadium 4% (98 votes)

Total of 2218 votes

The people have spoken!

'The people' have answered a question; "Does you wants a sportz stadium?" without much detail. There's a hundred questions that need to be asked and answered before you can say YES! to such a question. Some of which we've explored on this forum. That poll may as well be asking "Do you want an icecream?" or "Who wants to be a fireman?" without some ideas of what the question is actually proposing any yes or no answers at this point are poorly informed answers.

Already we've seen that the proposed rail yards site is not suitable for a world class stadium, we've seen that a soccer only stadium would lie unused for much of the time, and would make Hindmarsh somewhat redundant.

I'm all for development, but only when it makes sense, we already have the Wine Centre as an example of what not thinking about something gets us.

I once attended a large function at the Wine Centre, and I have to say, it's a wonderful building inside.

Omicron wrote:I once attended a large function at the Wine Centre, and I have to say, it's a wonderful building inside.

It is, I have no problem with the architecture, it's the lack of forethought that went into the function of the place. A classic example of something designed by committee.

It was a bit like the Sydney Opera House; Great building! now... what can we fit inside it?

monotonehell wrote:

Omicron wrote:I once attended a large function at the Wine Centre, and I have to say, it's a wonderful building inside.

It is, I have no problem with the architecture, it's the lack of forethought that went into the function of the place. A classic example of something designed by committee.

It was a bit like the Sydney Opera House; Great building! now... what can we fit inside it?

What is it these days - the University of Adelaide's filing room, or something?

monotonehell, i don't think it's a case of being 'classed' as pro development or not. It is certainly not a case of 'any development will do' either.
You are correct in saying about case by case merit, but if some of these minority groups continue to raise their voice and are the only people to do something about it to be heard, then they will continue to have an impact and dictate what goes on in this state and sadly the future of the state. I for one, am sick and tired of the city of Adelaide being held ransom to people that only care for themselves and have no concept of progression or achievement.
Those that agree with a development proposal also have the same right to support it and rally behind.

This post is not intended to be directed at APPA, it is merely a generalisation of the minority groups out there.