InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on a city stadium, nuclear dump and planning reform

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on moves to build a new city sports entertainment complex, the Kimba nuclear waste facility decision, and the importance of getting a troubled electronic planning system right.

Print article

Commenting on the story: Preferred city stadium options fail to measure up, report reveals

Why not rebuild the Entertainment Centre to cater for the court sports and music and either leave Hindmarsh Stadium, or upgrade/rebuild. 

Hindmarsh is right on the city edge, with a tram and train out front and multi-storey car park. 

The rush to move to the riverbank is a nice idea and the new Adelaide Oval a great success, but is Hindmarsh not also a great spot?

Adelaide doesn’t promote our inner-city areas; closing Hindmarsh and the Entertainment Centre would turn a thriving community into a ghost town and see many small businesses go out of business.

Instead, a new entertainment precinct could attract more use of the beautiful old buildings in the area.

Why create a bustling city and the expenses of the inner-city when you can have both? Tully Haines

I’m all for the Crows developing the Aquatic Centre site.

However, I feel they should abandon their plans because of the fanatical views of the Parklands Protection Society.

I presume all of their members reside in North Adelaide and see it as a right to oppose every plan for development. 

I would like to know how were the original plans for the Aquatic Centre approved in the late 70s?

In Colonel Light’s plan for Adelaide there was no vision of a golf course, a children’s hospital, a cathedral, a zoo – and the Botanic Gardens were to be located in the west parklands.

Not to mention every building on the Torrens lake. The Adelaide Oval is another example, along with all the buildings on the northern side of North Terrace.

How were all these projects approved?  I think it was  common sense that prevailed. – Leon Wieckowski

Commenting on the story: Kimba nuclear dump laws hit parliament

So much misinformation in this article.

It does not have broad community support. The voting pool was narrowed to 800 and the vote was won by 70 votes. That’s not broad support. It’s a manipulated outcome. Then the actual figures ‘vanish’ and they talk of percentages and broad support.

” ‘I thank the people of Kimba, Hawker, Quorn and surrounds, Traditional Owner groups, the Kimba District and Flinders Ranges councils and the Outback Communities Authority for their participation in this process,’ Pitt said today.”

 They took the Kimba traditional owners to court to specifically exclude them from the poll.

Funny how the first site was offered by the sitting Liberal member Rowan Ramsey, and this was only withdrawn when someone pointed out the conflict of interest so blatant but unrecognised by him.

Its actually against the laws of South Australia, a law that was given broad discussion and brought in by the SA Rann Government, now to be overridden by federal law.

45 Jobs. Maybe, but that’s during construction. Maybe.  They promise 25 in operation, but who can trust that figure when any new process built in a modern era can be fully automated. Maybe 2 security guards on the gate if its not remotely monitored from a capital city somewhere.

 Where is the nearest hospital and medical services? Kimba has none.

 How will it get there? None have been consulted about this, especially in Whyalla, the port that a report nominates as the shipping point.

 This article has taken the Government’s “facts” and failed to examine any of them. Its not reporting, its propaganda. Marc Daniel

Commenting on the story: Management team gutted in new Planning Dept exodus

How can this possibly be on track now that almost the entire leadership of the State Government’s delayed e-Planning rollout has resigned recently?

Rushing into meeting a deadline can only mean the whole plan will be compromised just to save face.

Shaft the idea for now and get on with asking what the community wants; the whole SA community, which includes regional and country people.

There is a wealth of intelligence out there and people with vision and foresight, which the government lacks because it can only see as far ahead as the next election.

Infrastructure, e.g regional rail networks provide employment, which is a plus for the economy.

SA needs to look to the future, and not concentrate on keeping the people of Adelaide happy to the exclusion of the rest of the State and the detriment of future growth. – Margaret Taylor

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.

Make a comment View comment guidelines

Local News Matters

Media diversity is under threat in Australia – nowhere more so than in South Australia. The state needs more than one voice to guide it forward and you can help with a donation of any size to InDaily. Your contribution goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. Please click below to help InDaily continue to uncover the facts.

Donate today
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article