Sensational-Adelaide.com

leave it empty, just to sum up this state

OlympusAnt wrote:leave it empty, just to sum up this state

Seriously? What kind of a comment is that? Can you please leave comments like that for AdelaideNow and not for this place?

When can the government grow a set, and put in place a law that requires any vacant site in a significant location be compulsorily acquired after say 10 years of non action. This site and the run down buildings on St Vincent Street in Port Adelaide are an absolute joke and are holding back further enhancement of their respective locations.

Brando wrote:I had to double check what Anne Moran actually did say, because I agreed with her....

Google search result for "I agree with Anne Moran what went wrong?"

claybro wrote:When can the government grow a set, and put in place a law that requires any vacant site in a significant location be compulsorily acquired after say 10 years of non action. This site and the run down buildings on St Vincent Street in Port Adelaide are an absolute joke and are holding back further enhancement of their respective locations.

but that opens up so many cans of worms.

what happens if a builder owner finds contamination ? so the best option is to demolish sit on the land and wait for the payout on compulsory aquistion?

What happens if the Government decides that it wants land and amends the wording?

i don't like giving Governments more power than they need, at the moment their ability to do it for Highways is fine (should be amended to rail as well) but not big parcels of land for which it has no plans.

Waewick wrote:

claybro wrote:When can the government grow a set, and put in place a law that requires any vacant site in a significant location be compulsorily acquired after say 10 years of non action. This site and the run down buildings on St Vincent Street in Port Adelaide are an absolute joke and are holding back further enhancement of their respective locations.

but that opens up so many cans of worms.

what happens if a builder owner finds contamination ? so the best option is to demolish sit on the land and wait for the payout on compulsory aquistion?

What happens if the Government decides that it wants land and amends the wording?

i don't like giving Governments more power than they need, at the moment their ability to do it for Highways is fine (should be amended to rail as well) but not big parcels of land for which it has no plans.

Agreed, compulsorily acquisition is open to abuse. How about instead some form of undeveloped land tax that ramps up after X years?

monotonehell wrote:

Waewick wrote:

claybro wrote:When can the government grow a set, and put in place a law that requires any vacant site in a significant location be compulsorily acquired after say 10 years of non action. This site and the run down buildings on St Vincent Street in Port Adelaide are an absolute joke and are holding back further enhancement of their respective locations.

but that opens up so many cans of worms.

what happens if a builder owner finds contamination ? so the best option is to demolish sit on the land and wait for the payout on compulsory aquistion?

What happens if the Government decides that it wants land and amends the wording?

i don't like giving Governments more power than they need, at the moment their ability to do it for Highways is fine (should be amended to rail as well) but not big parcels of land for which it has no plans.

Agreed, compulsorily acquisition is open to abuse. How about instead some form of undeveloped land tax that ramps up after X years?

agree with that proposal.

I can imagine a developer making a half-hearted attempt at "Making a Start" just before the deadline, only to stop again once the fine has been avoided. Details would have to be quite specific.

When Genesee & Wyoming got hold of the state's rail infrastructure, the deal was that if they didn't run a train over a line for a year, they forfeited the line back to the State. So they ran a lone loco over several lines once a year, but did nothing else. Effectively, they made sure that no-one else could profit from the lines that they couldn't turn a profit on, until the rail bed was in such bad condition that no-one could use it at all, and then they relinquished them.

rhino wrote:I can imagine a developer making a half-hearted attempt at "Making a Start" just before the deadline, only to stop again once the fine has been avoided. Details would have to be quite specific.

When Genesee & Wyoming got hold of the state's rail infrastructure, the deal was that if they didn't run a train over a line for a year, they forfeited the line back to the State. So they ran a lone loco over several lines once a year, but did nothing else. Effectively, they made sure that no-one else could profit from the lines that they couldn't turn a profit on, until the rail bed was in such bad condition that no-one could use it at all, and then they relinquished them.

Would apply until occupied/in use. So at least a property developer would have incentive to lease a property before demolition (instead of leave them sitting empty like so many between Nth Tce and Rundle Mall), and develop an empty block to conclusion (like LeCournu's).

Although people are always trying to work around the intent of a contract/law. These asshats are why there are so many rich lawyers.

OlympusAnt wrote:leave it empty, just to sum up this state

They should build a multi-level car park

rev wrote:

OlympusAnt wrote:leave it empty, just to sum up this state

They should build a multi-level car park

Its better than nothing

I repeat my comment from last year-
"Sat Nov 14, 2015 8:17 pm

Please send me a wake up email when there is a tower crane on site."

According to today's advertiser an agent has been appointed to start sales on the apartments.

Ben wrote:According to today's advertiser an agent has been appointed to start sales on the apartments.

... and may the snail race begin

I can't remember if this has been posted yet but Sheraton are Advertising rooms for hire from the 1st March 2019.