Commenting on the story: City council backtracks on carbon neutral leadership goal

It made sense to me a few days ago that the city council no longer had this ambition to lead on carbon neutrality.

Because after all, a city council for which revenue from cars in the city trumps cycling lanes (InDaily, March 11) has made its priorities clear. – Cathy Chua

Oh dear, such illusions of grandeur, when parking fee income has a higher priority to implementing a safe carbon-free bike lane on a street where it will actually be utilised.

I think they should relocate council chambers to the zoo, where they will assimilate better. – Rob Naudi

Commenting on the story: Council rejects move to junk Crows’ park lands push

So a corporate entity wants to use a great deal of taxpayers money to build an administration building on the park lands.

In addition, there will be a reduced swimming facility with ‘limited access’ to the public, to replace a facility that provided availability to several hundred thousand people.

That seems fair! – John Evanson

This football club is a large money-making business, and only a proportion of the population are even interested in this type of  football, so how much support does this project really have?

The arrogance from government and council in this matter is astounding. It should have been forget it, this is park lands.

To say the least, the quest to capitalise on selling off or giving away our park lands is wrong.

Keep our park lands for public only usage as intended.

Let them find their own location, I hear there are a couple of good areas vacated by a large supermarket chain recently.

The park lands are for the public, past, present and future. Commercial interest will always be looking for a profit at public expense.

Send the Crows packing, they shouldn’t have destroyed their last nest. – Mike Stuart

I keep seeing references to the “unsolicited bid” by the Crows. 

But Indaily said on 20/11/19 in City Council tells Crows: Release park lands HQ plan or we scrap it that Cr Moran admitted it was she who “first suggested that the council approach the Crows to build a new facility to replace the ageing and costly Aquatic Centre”. 

Does this mean it’s not an unsolicited bid, but a solicited bid started by Cr Moran?

And if she started it, why is she so opposed now? Is she being truthful with her constituents?

I think these questions need to be answered before we can take anything she says at face value. – Dean Kielpinski

Commenting on the story: Private operators named for Adelaide’s tram network

I agree with the union representative on the state’s pursuit of privatisation.

Yes, I remember the sell-off of ETSA – and look what happened to electricity cost, despite the assurances to the contrary. – Iris Iwanicki

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.