Commenting on the story: Pirie St Hyatt set for approval despite heritage concerns
There is absolutely no justification for the demolition of this Local Heritage listed item, which the developer knew or must have known was Local Heritage listed and so couldn’t be demolished when they purchased the site, as did anyone also looking to buy this property, so it cannot be said that the project in contingent on its demolition.
I cannot believe the SCAP are so naive or perhaps they just don’t give a sh.. about our city, which they are vested with the responsibility of curating for future generations.
The space to the east of the Local Heritage facade where the brutalist addition is actually creates a perfect opportunity for a hotel concourse for cars to drop off at; it would effectively be like a street widening in this location.
The Hyatt in Sydney successfully incorporates a heritage building with a tower setback.
I have no problem with the tower being higher if the Local Heritage facade is retained and the tower set back 6-8m fro this facade. – Alexander Wilkinson
Commenting on the opinion piece: Virtual parliament should be post-pandemic reality
Look closely at the image accompanying this story. Will PM Morrison be able to turn his back on the opposition speaker if federal parliament is undertaken remotely by video-link?
Turning his back on a speaker is the epitome of what is wrong with our present parliament; the sheer arrogance of it, the obvious lack of representing the Australian people.
He wears an Australian badge in his lapel but spurns any alternate opinion. – Paul Andrew
Commenting on the story: Chinese wine probe goes against grain
The close alliance of Australia to the USA will mean all our exports to China will be threatened.
The trade dispute between the USA and China is a result of the W.T.O. and this organisation has done no favours for Australia in any shape or form. – Bill Hollingsworth
Commenting on the story: Call to dump Centrelink’s JobSeeker asset changes
In a letter published in Your views on Monday, Irene Forsyte was left confused and angry when she could not get a clear answer about how the $11,000 in the bank would affect her rate of JobSeeker.
There is an income test and assets test for JobSeeker. As her assessable assets are below $400,000, there is no effect under the assets test from September 25, 2020.
The money in the bank would be deemed to earn 0.25% i.e. $10 per fortnight. As the income free area is $106 per fortnight, then there would be no reduction in her rate of Jobseeker.
This is a simple case for Centrelink and should have been answered quickly. – Malcolm Davies
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 your contribution to independent news
A donation of any size to InDaily goes directly to helping our journalists uncover the facts. South Australia needs more than one voice to guide it forward, and we’d truly appreciate your contribution. Please click below to donate to InDaily.