Crows to pitch North Adelaide HQ vision to council

Google Maps tells me that to walk from Adelaide Oval to the Aquatic Centre would take 26 minutes.

Considering that a large number of Crows supporters use public transport to attend the football, are they likely to walk to the “new clubhouse” after a match, especially after a night game?

If they did go there, they would then be faced with minimal public transport options to get them back home.

It appears that the site would not be licensed, so that would remove the attraction of after games meals and drinks and post-match presentations. It will not be a substitute for the Crows Shed. 

If they did attend that site, is it likely they would then walk or drive to O’Connell Street to provide the traders there a big boost? On what basis does the Crows think that this would occur?

To quote Rob Chapman: A new headquarters in the park lands would help North Adelaide businesses “capitalise on game-day opportunities, as well as weekdays, by virtue of people coming to our football club for the experience”.

It appears we taxpayers will be asked to contribute to this project, so a public release of the business case must be a priority. 

The Adelaide City Council will certainly gain by offloading the Aquatic Centre, which if then updated would be good for those who attend the swimming facility.

Let us see who is promised to benefit, and why the Crows believe that walking away from their well-provided Football Park venue is to their supporters advantage. – Paul Turner

Commenting on the story: “Unfair, unsustainable, uncompetitive”: Lib MP unleashes on land tax

I believe the proposed new SA land tax arrangements come after similar changes in Victoria and NSW.

So the idea that property developers will move to those states is highly unlikely.

As this tax dodge for wealthy investors has been legal up to now, surely a grandfathering introduction should be included. – David Carollo

I expect we all accept that taxes are necessary in a society, in which case there are only have three things a tax needs to be: low, simple and fair.

The proposal to change the land tax regime is not simple (as multiple properties change the outcome), it is not low (as high value properties are taxed very highly) and it is certainly not fair (as the burden falls on a small section of the community).

As other readers have commented, by all means have a land tax, but set a low, flat fee, per property.

There would be no need, for example, to set up trusts or change ownership, which are strategies people use to deal with an unfair, complex tax. – Daniel Caon

Commenting on the story: Call to cut city speed limit to 40km/h

Whilst not trying to belittle the idea of lowering the speed limit in the city area, I also believe that the high number of incidents involving pedestrians is the fact that they also either do not obey road rules that apply to them, or are so busy involved in their not-so-smart phones that they lose track of where they are, and walk out into traffic.

Having said that, I feel that on most city roads during medium to heavy traffic you would be lucky for anyone to be doing 50km/h – it most likely would be about 25-30km/h. – Milan Andelkovic

Last time I looked the average speed in the CBD was 29km/h.

Before a decision is made we need more data on the why, when and where accidents occur so that everyone can understand the reasoning behind the reduction.

Otherwise it will be yet another example of governments doing something to people and not with them. – Penny Gale

Andrew Satterley in his comment on the proposal to reduce city speed limits to 40km/h states that: “It means that pedestrians especially need to be totally responsible for their actions; not expect that motorists to be able to avoid them.”

The South Australian Driver’s Handbook includes the following comment: “It is your responsibility to minimise your risk of being involved in a crash by driving safely and obeying the road rules.”

So if a person who is walking across a street makes a mistake or does something stupid (as we all do from time to time), then it is the responsibility of people in cars not to drive into them.

We are all responsible for keeping each other safe on the roads, and a reduced speed limit is a great step towards it. – Jon Holbrook

You may reduce the speed limit but the same (smartphone-watching, music-listening) inattentive pedestrians will step onto the road without due care or regard for the vehicles are moving on them, technically “jaywalking”.

On more than one occasion in the city and elsewhere I’ve nearly hit the above, despite using hazard lights while manoeuvring to enter parking spaces.

While a lower speed limit appears a reasonable step to lower resultant injuries, if nothing changes in pedestrian behaviour (which in my honest opinion has deteriorated dramatically in recent years, with my personal observation correlating smartphone use with those who put themselves most at risk when near or on roads), the primary objective won’t be met. 

Conversely, speed limits in roadwork zones car parks need more enforcement, not necessarily reduction, as I’m often overtaken in 25km/h workzones, and shudder at some of the speeds reached by vehicles in the confines of 10km/h shared zones.

Car parks are often minimally signed within the parking area, with drivers often missing poorly placed or obscured signage on entry.

A fatality is imminent, unless something changes there, too. – Mike Eisenblatter

Want to comment?

Send us an email, making it clear which story you’re commenting on and including your full name (required for publication) and phone number (only for verification purposes). Please put “Reader views” in the subject.

We’ll publish the best comments in a regular “Reader Views” post. Your comments can be brief, or we can accept up to 350 words, or thereabouts.

InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.