InDaily InDaily

Support independent Journalism Donate Subscribe
Support independent journalism

Reader contributions

Your views: on pipelines and housing, disability advocacy, Oval finances and Centrelink

Reader contributions

Today, readers comment on warnings of ‘catastrophic’ risk of housing near a gas pipeline, advocacy funding, Adelaide Oval and living in poverty.

Print article

Commenting on the story: Gas supplier warns of ‘catastrophic’ risks in SA housing development

There is a seriously dangerous pipeline built in good faith under rural land. Now property developers want to build in and around it. They want the pipeline company to spend money making it safe for them to do so? Why – they knew it was there.

Equally important is the destruction of large numbers of significant old trees. What planet are these developers on? It’s not acceptable for them to destroy community property at no cost.

These trees have significant value, so would they be prepared to pay say $1 million per tree destroyed? Or would that not make much difference to the overall profit expected? John Clayton

“It is generally accepted that the removal of regulated/significant trees can occur to facilitate orderly and reasonable development.”

How dare a statutory body such as SACP put forward this statement as being in any reasonable. It’s not accepted at all. There is nothing orderly about removing native vegetation, it must be outlawed and made illegal.

We have all spent far too long here ripping our country apart, clear-felling, quarrying, converting to farming and agriculture  and generally needlessly expanding our suburban areas – it’s our mindset of untrammelled growth at all costs, it must be stopped, and now. Our indigenous ancestors lived in harmony here and we all can, too!If we decide we want to and need to. – Michael Pilkington

Wow. SCAP should research the San Bruno pipeline explosion before going any further. – Doug Gillott

Commenting on the story: SA disability advocacy group named

Given the enormity of advocacy needs and the sludge that has to be eased through to navigate NDIS and both the private and not-for-profit, all the vested interests and the complexity of administration, the advocacy funding allocated over three years would I think be gravely inadequate for one year, let alone three? – Annette Herbert

Commenting on the story: Lucas extends largesse to Adelaide Oval operators

Haven’t ‘The Boys’ had enough?

The hotel had to be built to support the Oval. We are now giving money to support the support.

Maybe now is the time to say enough and to stop exposing the whole community to debt.

The money they are not paying in taxes is already granting excessive privilege. – Mary Isabel Storer

Commenting on the story: Skipping meals due to low Centerlink JobSeeker payments a ‘scandal’: Anglicare

Australians and their children shouldn’t be condemned or subjected to poverty, particularly those who contribute to society by volunteering and through no fault of their own endure skipping meals due to low Centrelink Jobseeker payments. It has to change. – Julie Craven

Make a comment View comment guidelines

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.

Donate here
Powered by PressPatron

More Reader contributions stories

Loading next article