Your views: on water trading, a Crows’ park lands HQ, council DV leave, land tax and North Tce trees
Today, readers question the water trading industry, the right of businesses to set up on public park lands, domestic violence leave, land tax and the rationale for axing city trees.
Commenting on the story: SA investment firm denies “water hoarding” during record drought
I am an irrigator with permanent water license that normally would get us through a season.
However, knowing there would be restrictions we entered the leasing of water market in May, paying a forward contract of $610 mg.
At the moment in hindsight, that was a good deal.
It is my opinion the Federal Government made a catastrophic decision to separate water licenses from farming properties, allowing cashed-up investors with no interest in farming or the consequences of free open water trading to purchase huge amounts of water licenses that they then play the market with, as a commodity trader.
As a consequence, farmers normally supplying Australia with food and earning huge export dollars for the economy can no longer afford the water and therefore cannot provide vital produce for consumers.
They will be replaced by imports.
Water in this country is a total mess. – Craig Willson
The very idea that we as a community have permitted this to happen, that we can talk about water as investment, as a ‘portfolio’.
It is unconscionable. It has to be changed. – Cathy Chua
Commenting on the story: Ex-MP warns city council against Crows’ park lands HQ
Even as a Crows supporter I cannot countenance the prospect of their business – and we are continually being reminded that the AFL is a business – having any footprint in the park lands.
You might like
It would set a precedent that others would push to the limit as soon as they got a chance.
Adelaide is not only synonymous with Colonel Light’s plan, but it is his plan.
The park lands belong to the people, and that is that. – Craig Delaney
The park lands belong to the people of Adelaide.
Greedy councils are selling off our open spaces. Its time they recognised that they are our servants/guardians.
We are not a bottomless pit and we are entitled to have a say in their decisions for the good of our areas.
It is time they got back to the grassroots of what councils were supposed to do; rubbish, rates, roads – instead of glorifying their existence in the name of the holy dollar at the behest of their ratepayers. – Christine Tester
Commenting on the story: City council accepts 20 days’ paid domestic violence leave
This is absolutely ludicrous.
While I sympathise with victims of domestic violence, the granting of an additional 20 days of paid leave is totally unacceptable in our current economic climate.
They already had provisions for generous leave entitlement.
How in hell is struggling private enterprise expected to absorb this latest development?
The union movement lives in a fool’s paradise. Private enterprises employ the majority of people in Australia. – Mike Lesiw
Commenting on the story: Budget bungle leaves land tax plan that’s “mutton dressed as lamb”
Firstly I quote Rob Lucas in his response on aggregation as to why they introduced this bill: “because we knew we wanted to stop the circumstances in terms of some people paying no land tax at all”.
This is totally ridiculous.
Rob Lucas is suggesting that there are currently people not paying any land tax, which is why they are changing the aggregation rules, but at the same time he is allowing a further 9000 properties in SA to not pay any land tax as they are under the tax free threshold of $450k. My wife and I are really puzzled.
So here we have it, where well over 90% of the investment property market in SA will pay no land tax from 30 June 2020, while the remaining mum and dad investors with two or more investment properties or business properties will be paying unsustainable amounts, forcing devastation of families and businesses and a multitude of flow-on effects.
Stay informed, daily
In terms of the numbers, they are professing to extract a further $86m from mum and dad investors with two or more investment/business properties, but give back $105m to the investors that have just one investment property, by means of paying no land tax.
Now if my math is correct, that leaves them in a deficit of $19m. I thought the entire process of reforming land tax was to meet the needs of the $2.1B GST shortfall as per the Steven Marshall Team letter I received mid-July, amongst other reports in the media.
Nothing makes sense here.
This entire package is so ridiculously flawed in every sense of the word, it should be scrapped immediately.
In relation to this quote by Rob Lucas; ” They’ve not been able to defend a position where someone owns $3 or $4 million in property and doesn’t pay a dollar in land tax.”
I suggest this is because you have a tax free threshold which allows some people to legally adopt this practice to step around the debilitating aggregation system.
Remove the tft and we will all pay land tax in SA for our investment properties.
Simply create a flat fee of say $500 per investment or business property and this will be fair and equitable for all South Australians, encompassing the other 90%+ of the property investment market, removing aggregation in the process.
Aggregation alone severely stops and restricts many in this significant job creating sector. Let’s all contribute to our great state. Do this and watch SA thrive.
I also call for a Parliamentary Enquiry into what many are now calling a land tax rort by this Government. – James Turcinov
Commenting on the story: Retaining historic North Tce trees impossible: Lot 14 landscaper
I am a resident in the East End Precinct. We are very attached to any garden and parklands.
We think the decision to remove the tress outside the old RAH site is an absolute disgrace and has no merit aesthetically or environmentally.
I have heard it said that part of the rationale is that they only have another year of life left – I would like to see the evidence of that.
I will strongly oppose any attempt to remove them, and would like my opinion passed on to the relevant bodies.
I have previously complained to the ACC about the removal of three trees in Finders St which were deemed to be impeding access to a new apartment/hotel complex.
The reasons for that decision were opaque. – John Raftery
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.
InDaily has changed the way we receive comments. Go here for an explanation.
