InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Your views: on council dysfunction, Adelaide Festival, North Tce trees and land tax

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on a city councillor’s threat to boycott meetings, the value of the Adelaide Festival to residents, whether a landscaper’s vision is shared by residents, and land tax.

Print article

Commenting on the story: “I’m not coming back”: Moran to boycott council meetings

I wholeheartedly concur with Councillor Moran that it should be everyone’s right within council – whether councillor or as part of the administration – to operate within a safe workplace, free of bullying and unprovoked attack. 

I applaud her for leading the charge on this and helping contribute to, and achieve this culture for the good of everyone who serves at the City of Adelaide. David Hill

How tragic. As the councillor knows, miss three meetings and you are no longer a councillor.

It’s her decision, but “spitting the dummy” gets you nowhere.

Stay in the chamber debate, put your views forward and the majority rules.

A good debate is needed. This is not achieved by walking out.

To me personally it is very disappointing that a member of the ACC acts in this manner.

What have you achieved? Just publicity. – Arthur Mangos

It is really disappointing to see and hear of councillors behaving this way when supposedly serving the needs of the community they represent.

What is most disappointing  is that several members seem to have the opinion that their views should over ride the views of the majority.

When they don’t, it seems that “spitting the dummy” is the way to deal with it.

The basic principle of democracy that was taught when at school is that the majority vote rules, and it seems that certain councillors have the view that this shouldn’t apply when their view is not accepted.

The place for correction, should the community accept their views, is at the ballot box, not in the Council chamber. Eric Granger

Commenting on the opinion piece: Is there enough Adelaide in the Adelaide Festival?

Stephen Orr raises a great point.

Support for smaller and local arts is essential.

But I don’t see the Festival (the main one; not the Fringe) as part of that.

It is not an either/or; and any sensible society can see the distinction.

 For us “working poor”; paying $150 or even $250 for the Magic Flute is better than flying to Berlin, or Toulouse or wherever.

We support the major/big arts – ASO, SATC etc; because that is our “scene”.

But we also support the local independents, including embracing SALA for example.

I think the problem is that we are not politicians.

I remember a quote: “Politicians may not be literate; but they are numerate.”

They bend to public opinion and do attempt to ingratiate themselves in what they perceive are important to the voters.

What Stephen raises is the gritty question: “Have we communicated that the arts – all levels, and especially the local arts – is important to us as voters?”

Let’s not give public money to the AFL to build the Crows a new centre – let’s put that money towards a concert hall. Ian Fry

Commenting on the story: Retaining historic North Tce trees impossible: Lot 14 landscaper

It is inconceivable that these iconic heritage trees did not feature in the landscape design proposed for Lot 14.

They have been there for more than 100 years – stately, robust and much loved. 

These trees belong to Adelaide, to her citizens and to the birds and small mammals that have made them home.

There is still an opportunity and sufficient time to recreate the Lot 14 streetscape, incorporating these elms into a unique and quite magnificent setting for everyone to enjoy.

All it requires is political will and a creative design team, who are passionate about preserving and conserving our cultural and natural heritage.

It seems very unfair to the people of Adelaide, immoral even, that an architectural design company can propose the obliteration of  eleven 100-year old trees in order to accommodate and impose their own landscape vision on the city. Christine Empson

Commenting on the story:Once upon a time in the West: A tale of two businesses

Mr. Turcinov has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the big end of town is not complaining; they are getting a big benefit from the proposed new land tax regime.

It is the small businesses which save and invest in property, as distinct from other asset classes.

It is they who will carry the burden of increased land tax, if they can afford to retain the ownership of their investment, post new land tax change.

As for developers supporting land tax changes, they do not hold and invest in property, therefore they will not carry the burden of the land tax.

Please note that the land tax is based on the unencumbered fee simple (ownership) of the site value of land, which means tax is paid on the whole value of the vacant land,

and not just the equitable interest in the land.

The other equity( not owned) is usually “owned “ by the providers of the mortgage funds who do not pay land tax.

So it is the investor /saver who pays on behalf the lender’s interest. Thank you very much.

The argument that $7m of a single holding is the same as seven properties by $1m each in value of aggregated property is the same is not so, because

a $7m single site might get a high rise and a heap of rental cash flow, whereas seven individual $1m properties would not get any near as much.

Demand for smaller properties in value are in more demand because more individuals can compete for these, unlike single larger parcels where there is a smaller competitive field.

Moreover a single larger site will require a quantum of capital to develop, which is not available to the smaller site buyer.

But the larger development sites will have a disproportionally higher quantum leap of rental cashflow over the smaller sites.

The counter argument I can hear is swings and roundabouts, some benefit and some disbenefit.

Yep, tell that to the mums and dads who are the investors and savers trying to minimise their exposed risks. Sam Christodoulou

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.

Help our journalists uncover the facts

In times like these InDaily provides valuable, local independent journalism in South Australia. As a news organisation it offers an alternative to The Advertiser, a different voice and a closer look at what is happening in our city and state for free. Any contribution to help fund our work is appreciated. Please click below to donate to InDaily.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article