Your Views: Letters to the Editor
This week, InDaily readers respond to proposed redevelopment plans for Hutt Street and “embarrasing” Town Hall antics caught on livestream.
Responding to What does Adelaide really want from a redeveloped Hutt Street?
There is much force in the opinions expressed about focusing on the strengths and needs of main streets for humanistic footpath improvements in Hutt Street rather than gross roadway and parking re-configurations. The same can be said for O’Connell and Melbourne Streets. Why spend tens of millions on what is not needed when much can be gained with smarter spending and less expense? Why has “grey” aggregate concrete become the colour of council and consultants when there is so much within the palette of the local character, heritage and environs of these main streets by which colour, vibrancy, materiality and creativity would add real value to their differentiation and contribute to the future life, humanity and liveability of their locality? A big spend does not make a better place. – Elbert Brooks, chairperson of The North Adelaide Society Inc.
Maybe these traders should look at some case studies and pay attention to what happens when you urbanise an area and make it a place for people, not cars. Business goes up, and it becomes a more pleasant place that people actually want to go to.
I would actually want to spending time dining outdoors on Hutt Street with limited parking and a 30km/h speed limit. Maybe they should poll their customers to see how far away they travel from, and what mode of transport they use. The only reason I ever “visit” Hutt Street is to drive through it to get to work when I’m not catching the train.
This is a tale as old as time – traders scream no one is going to come, then it gets built and they’re proven to be completely wrong. Countless examples of this in Melbourne and Sydney, and across the world.
People buy things, not cars. – James Donovan
Kiss goodbye to Hutt Street if Option D goes ahead – parallel parking and 72 spaces will kill it stone dead, for the sake of a few bikes that sometimes use the street. Look at the Frome Road disaster!
For as long as I can remember, Adelaide City Council has been dead against cars, constantly cutting parking and narrowing roads. This would be another nail in the coffin. – Colin Gaetjens, Kent Town
If Option D proceeds, it will cause more chaos than what we are currently seeing at Jetty Road, Glenelg, and regular patrons of the Hutt Street businesses would be appalled if this was to happen, let alone those who drive along the street every day. Furthermore, implementing a dedicated bike lane, like Frome St/Frome Road is not warranted in this thoroughfare. I suggest that the cyclists use Putleney St instead!
The Hutt Street traders have developed a unique village over many years of nurturing, and it would be a travesty to lose the goodwill they have developed. I urge the Council to take into account the livelihood of the Hutt Street traders, and not reduce on-street car parking.
As far as I am concerned, the status quo should remain. Develop option A with a small change – upgrade all the footpaths, remove the gutter/kerbing and install car park rubber wheel stops. This will make the streetscape more attractive, user-friendly and safer. Delete the unsightly and dangerous high concrete kerbs.
You might like
The latest iteration of Hutt Road is woeful. Seriously, it appears that the ACC is determined to delete any mode of transport other than bicycles and buses – no wonder people are already giving up visiting the city. – Paula Furlani, Glenside
What about loading zones? They are vital to supplying these outlets, and in the CBD, however, very little consideration is given to this in planning. – Andrew Tait
I see that the entirely predictable moves are well underway towards preventing any safe, cycling infrastructure on O’Connell Street and Hutt Street.
I suggest that this would, yet again, make Adelaide appear backward in its thinking and unable to keep up with the times.
Perhaps the Council should simply endorse a statement that people who use bikes for transport are not welcome in the city, and if people must insist on cycling, they do so at their own risk.
Then we can all get back to driving everywhere and forget any notion of being a “modern” city.
Are we applying for COP31 in jest? – Ben Smith
Responding to Watch: ‘Embarrassing’ Town Hall tensions caught on livestream
Good Heavens! I don’t expect this sort of kindergarten behaviour from elected councillors! It’s bad enough listening to the federal government, but to hear it from ADELAIDE councillors, from whom the public is entitled to expect more dignity and common sense
Is very disappointing. Grow up, councillors, or prepare not to be elected again. – Anne Smith
As a business owner, I believe Council has a perfect record of achieving nothing. The issues around parklands, public drinking, disorderly conduct, street parking and bikeways have not advanced at all since I started business in the city in 2017. That is an impressive result for anyone aspiring to incompetence. I have attended too many citizen meetings with council involvement, and not one matter has been satisfactorily resolved. I would be happy to see the old wood move on and fresh faces address the important issues. – Robert Naudi
If this meeting is an indication of how council meetings are held, I can now understand why our state is in such a mess! What a bunch of children! They belong in a childcare centre, under strict supervision! – Edward Jaeger, Penfield
Responding to Council’s ‘abysmal state of affairs’ blamed for low voter turnout
The Local Government Minister Joe Szakacs’ comments show his total lack of understanding of the issues currently facing councils, many of whom are trying to manage difficult and offensive behaviour from those who use the chamber, not in the interests of serving the community, but to play up for attention for their own political ambitions or agendas.
In local government, it is extremely difficult to hold people to account for their behaviour. It’s never OK to disrespect the chair of a meeting, interrupt, talk over other people or yell out from the public gallery. State parliament has systems in place to manage this. We don’t. The legal framework for local government needs reform. We need an enforceable code of conduct, a workable dispute process and compulsory voting. We all know from the US that when there is voluntary voting, it’s very easy for individuals to be elected who have self-interest, vested interest and who do not represent the community. Training alone will not cut it. There needs to be real consequences for disruption and abuse.
Instead of reforming in a way that will make a difference, the Minister has only moved to disenfranchise good people who live and contribute to their community, such as refugees and new immigrants, who have made a commitment to this country but are not yet eligible for citizenship. They are not the problem!
Stay informed, daily
We are desperate for change. Unless this happens, even more competent Mayors and Councillors will decide not to continue, and many good people will not nominate. This will only leave us all in the hands of even more unrepresentative, badly behaved fabulists. – Janet Giles, City of Adelaide councillor
Make voting mandatory in local elections. Make the role financially attractive to attract qualified people. Currently, it is ludicrous that a councillor who may have polled a few hundred votes is responsible for a council budget in the millions. – Aidan Leahy
Responding to Simms: AFL’s homophobia problem is bigger than Rankine
To Robert Simms, as long as no footballer declares themselves homosexual, whose business is to force gay footballers to “come out”.
Quite frankly, Robert, it is not yours or anyone else’s business as to the sexual preferences being advertised. Everyone should be respected, no matter who they bat for! – Eldert Hoebee, Torrens Park
Responding to Crows star match ban for homophobic slur revealed
Toss a coin. Seems to be the AFL modus operandi these days. – Bob DS
I think this homophobic slur business is out of hand (as Snoop Dogg’s use of it shows). Compare this with serious bodily injury, e.g., breaking a jaw usually attracts only 3 match suspensions. I know the Melbourne-based bigwigs will not change. Are they afraid of Adelaide winning again? – David Lines, Blackwood
Responding to Libs make ‘worst-kept secret’ official
The sorry state of our opposition is an inherent danger to South Australian democracy. As an elector for Waite, I cannot see how this “strategy” will work out for them; they’d need the entirety of the Duluk vote to go back to the party, and that vote was proof (among other SA Independents) that there is very little party affiliation for the Liberals anymore. With how the polls are going, such a risk seems suicidal.
We are at risk of a Labor majority in the Legislative Council, which would mean virtually zero accountability or compromise in a government that has failed to deliver many of its election promises, but the Liberals are so incompetent that Malinauskas seems like a saint to people in comparison. At this point, the news is often solely Greens MLC Rob Simms, because he’s the only stable footing willing to provide an observably different, consistent platform to Labor. Tarzia has talked about his “alternative vision for South Australia”, but I’m not even sure he could articulate what’s different from it. If we do not want SA’s democracy to become a farce, then we either need an electoral reform to a multi-member electorate system to better represent the voter base, or the complete abandonment of the Liberal Party altogether. The idea of a party resorting to hiring members who left other parties inspires no confidence, not least that Pangallo has provided no policy to the Waite electorate.
We risk growing dissatisfaction and a crash of voter turnout (WA may be seeing this already) if we cannot even keep up a routine of representative democracy going forward. In the meantime, we can only pester polling companies to remember SA exists; the poll disparity vs Victoria and NSW is pretty infuriating. – Timothy Pickering
Responding to SA’s algal bloom and the case for a polluter-pays disaster fund
What a crock of a story.
It is secretly acknowledged that the organism responsible for the algal bloom is transported and dispersed by ship bilge, which has nothing to do with carbon pollution.
It’s just that the normal bulwarks for the dumping of bilge water in SA waters – sea grasses and phytoplankton are missing in the fight.
It’s mostly due to nutrient-rich, stormwater runoff, again not carbon pollution and missing microscopic organisms, normally brought up from Antarctic waters. This may in part be attributable to carbon pollution, although even that’s a long bow to draw.
New Zealand are quite happy to deny cruise ships and other potentially hazardous vessels from entering their territorial waters, at the expense of tourist dollars. Australia should man up and do the same. – Glenn Orr
