Commenting on the story: Olympican throws down gauntlet over Crows’ park lands HQ bid

The Adelaide Parklands belong to the people of South Australia.  The Adelaide Crows are a private corporation. 

If the Adelaide Crows wish to have their headquarters in the City of Adelaide Council area, there are numerous properties for sale that they can purchase and redevelop.

 The Adelaide City Council and its staff should be helping the Adelaide Crows find a suitable commercial site within the council area to build their headquarters. 

 If they would like to have access to the Adelaide parklands, they could build their headquarters in a fringing site such as Fullarton Rd, Greenhill Road or Port Road.

Why would anybody give our parklands away to a private company, and who has the legislative authority to give our parklands away? – Mary Jose

Good on Denise Norton! When this facility becomes a money earner for the Crows, how much input will there be from the public?

Remember that around 20 years ago when it was first noted that the North Adelaide Aquatic Centre was desperately in need of an upgrade – and deserving of a much better one than it got – the Adelaide City Council was at loggerheads with State Government back then as to who should pay the bills, and no-one bothered to listen to all the dedicated swimmers, divers and the peer bodies such as SwimmingSA who wanted a new, updated Aquatic Centre in North Adelaide and did not want the Oaklands Park (Marion) one ultimately delivered not by public consultation, but by political lobbying. 

The Bowen-Pain family and many others who have State perpetual swimming trophies in swimming family names supported the main State pool remaining in North Adelaide, in what is now, very appropriately Denise Norton Park.

A number of big swimming clubs who came from Asia to compete on a regular basis have been lost to the sport.

Why are such important decisions made by politics rather than by listening to frequent users and the public? 

I saw all this from the vantage point of a volunteer swimming technical official for 20 years. – Carol Bailey

We have a government that criticised the previous government over unsolicited bids such as at Gillman land debacle.

We then have it committing the same, secretive deal with the Adelaide Oval Stadium Management Authority over a hotel built into the oval complex on parklands;  I might add a redeveloped Adelaide Oval on the back of $500+ millions of taxpayer dollars.

What is the return to taxpayers? 

We have a Stadium Management Authority that first said it needed the revenue stream to support girls’ involvement in sport, and then expanded this to junior sports. 

We now have a proposition that it needs the revenue to maintain the quality of the oval and surrounds as attendances decline on the back of poor performance of two state-based teams and the high cost of attendance, and all the revenue will benefit the SANFL and SACA.

We now have an unsolicited bid by the Crows football club to effectively encroach on the North Adelaide parklands in taking over the aquatic centre, but intending to build what?

This charade of behind the scene consultations, the undisclosed impact on the parklands, the deals done behind closed doors need to stop now.

The Crows need to open their bid to public scrutiny.

The Government needs to stop allocating taxpayer money to commercial endeavours such as a hotel, when the private sector is the appropriate agent to engage in such activity. 

$42 million it was –  about the size of the original estimate derived from aggregation of land tax; could have saved $42 million and not wasted massive amount of political  capital.

The Adelaide City Council needs to tell us what impact there might be on the North Adelaide parklands for any bid put forward by the Adelaide Football Club.

You are all complicit in what is becoming an anti-democratic, secretive pursuit of self-interest exercise and for what gain?

And all this from a football club that is being urged to be open and inviting to members, a city council that claims to act on behalf of ratepayers/the community (‘we’re closest to the community”) and government that claims to “listen and consult”. – Michael O’Neil

Commenting on the story: SA Senator slams AFL “social justice rounds” as Bernardi signs off

Politicians on the Right often accuse the Left of being overly focused on political correctness, identity politics and social justice issues, but Antic once again illustrates the Right are at least equally – if not more obsessed. – Louis Rankin

Antic wants to shut down debate and freedom of opinion from sporting clubs, claiming they should concentrate on the ‘core business’ of playing sport, and rails against’ fabricated outrage’ by fabricating outrage.

In return, I suggest Antic stick to the ‘core business’ of being a political representative, and not a dictator to the people he is paid to represent. 

He is keen to introduce divisive rhetoric – city v country, faith v non-faith etc – but that just shows he isn’t able to do his job of representing South Australians as a whole.

He wasn’t elected to tell us what to do, or to limit the democratic voice of community, sporting, and social groups.

If he can’t do his job as a representative properly, he looks like just another right-wing attention-seeker pontificating without mandate, adding nothing positive to society while demanding a return to the ‘good old days’ (which only ever existed in their heads). – Jacob Hodgman

Commenting on the story: City council to approve axing historic North Tce trees

The ACC majority decision to chop down the historic North Tce trees is one of the not only worse but also one of the most shameful decisions. 

Not only locals but those who visit Adelaide and SA are drawn to our renowned streetscape and retention of much of our historic footprint – at least that developed since 1836. 

And there have been some very prominent past heroes who have stepped up to ensure this would continue.  Remember the plunder that was proposed for huge swathes of North Adelaide under the (fortunately rescinded) MAATS plan and how Horst Solomon (and maybe there were others) then stepped in when it looked like greedy developers were about to pounce. 

We now have a historic precinct mixed with measured development as a consequence. 

And what about Rundle Street East and our past Lord Mayor, Michael Harbison (who had the foresight along with his wealth) who realised what a prize it offered as a uniquely ‘people’ level shopping strip with mainly interesting Victorian architectural facades.

Sorry Sandy Verschoor, but this is a time when we need to step up too. Surely you can find another contractor and or designer who can provide a ‘conserving’ outcome in this very important occasion. 

Just get on with it.  Save those trees and keep that amazing streetscape and integrated historic profile on that corner. – Mariann McNamara

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.