Commenting on Developers warn government over Crown & Anchor ’emotion’

So it is “dangerous” to have people’s feelings taken into account when it comes to the protection of our cultural heritage? Are not human sentiments the main reason cultural heritage is protected – anywhere on the planet – for any group of people?  – Andy Kelleher

What a surprise! Developers don’t want “public sentiment” and “populist opinions” standing in the way of them making a motza!  Who would ever have thought it?

Perhaps if they were to give some thought to good design, maintaining the integrity of the city scape and preserving Adelaide’s heritage there wouldn’t be any issues! I am not against progress and change, I am just against appalling architecture which further encroaches on and detracts from our city just to add millions to some developer’s bottom line! – Aura Valli

Yes Bruce, it is up to a landlord to decide what their assets best and highest use is and what business they would like as a tenant. In this case, the “asset” is a local heritage place, and therefore whatever that tenant or business may be, it must operate within the Crown & Anchor as it is.

As someone who values heritage I don’t care if it’s a publican or community library that operates out of the building, what matters is the building (in its original form) remains. It is not emotive to expect our heritage rules to do what is expected – to preserve heritage. If we preserve the built form the cultural uses will survive. – Alicia Siegel

Bruce Djite has indulged in his usual aggressive rhetoric in defending the so-called rights of our local property developers club, the Property Council.  Contrary to his assertion, it is the job of politicians, their constituents and heritage and lived amenity advocacy groups to protect the community from unnecessary and undesirable high rise monstrosities. – Warren Jones

Can you believe the arrogance of the Property Council to suggest that, in a democracy, governments should ignore public opinion when not the same as interests of big business? There wouldn’t need to be public outrage if businesses (developers) got themselves more in tune with the community rather than preferring to run roughshod over it. – Robert Fletcher

I feel like Bruce would do well to grasp the notion that developers shouldn’t buy beloved, in use, heritage buildings with the purpose to destroy them in the first place. Then no one would need to dictate to them what to do with their purchases. – Kati Jenkins

Wow, that is an extraordinary confession of purpose from the Property Council: basically saying that we shouldn’t let the people who live in this city have a say on what happens in this city.

“It is not the job of politicians or advocacy bodies to decide what is or isn’t a good development” they say – so who’s job is it, Property Council? Oh, it’s your right, of course, your members’ right because they have an unfettered right to make money.

Au contraire, dear Pro Co, it is indeed the job of advocacy bodies (the citizens) to be involved in deciding what happens in their city. You decry all emotion except for the one that you allow: greed. – Quincy Grant

I find it a sad indictment of our times that someone should suggest that emotion should not be a factor of how we plan where and how we live. Humans are sentient creatures – we feel. And the proposed development of the Cranker site has illustrated this ten-fold.

People feel strongly about this Adelaide institution. It impacts us on an emotional, intellectual and cultural level. If we did not have emotions about our environments we’d all live in unadorned boxes. But we don’t – we fill our lived spaces with memory, joy, community and human expression.

To suggest that consideration of this proposal should not take emotion into account shows exactly what this development (and I used the term loosely, it’s more devolution) is pushing. A place where those with money come first, and those of us who live with the consequences should just keep quiet and keep our emotions to ourselves. – Katherine Sutcliffe

Flowing on from the proposed destruction of the Crown & Anchor is the proposed development of two towers of apartments, 20 stories high in the historic precinct of the former Glenside Hospital site.  Another glaring and ugly example of greed and profit by the owners of that site, sold at the ‘eleventh hour’ by the former Labor government when the site is now, in this age, sorely needed as a mental hospital precinct. – Di Wilkins

Commenting on Rent freeze bid to hit state parliament

This initiative will put insane pressure on everyone. No winners as already  there is supply issues created in no small way by the liberals ridiculous land tax impost and increases no one saw coming by way of inflation. Higher prices and every holding cost has put investors under a lot of additional pressure. We are one investor looking for a way out right now. 

The Land Tax cost as well as complication of implementation has helped SA be part of the rental crisis

This Greens concept is seriously flawed in my view. It will make this situation a lot worse as it is yet another reason for landlords to find alternative investments or move money to other states. Just like Land Tax has already done.  – Anthony Toop

Why has Robert Simms stopped at only demanding that rents are frozen for two years? Why doesn’t he continue the delusion with a Bill requiring that all retailers freeze their prices for two years also? How can such idiocy have a place in parliament, Greens voters hang your heads in shame. – Lachlan Miller