Sensational-Adelaide.com

Hopefully they are working on the design and approval to extend it the 100m to the corner of St Vincent St, even if they need to demolish some of the Courts Buildings.

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:48 am

Norman wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:39 am

construction should start in a few weeks

How do you know that just out of interest? I can't see anything on the website that suggests it's progressing - the status is still showing as 'in design' which has been the case since at least as far back as January 2018.

I was at the open day in March and, from memory, early works should commence in Q2 2019 and major works in Q3 or Q4 2019.

Additionally, the newsletter from February 2019 states:

Timing of works
Early investigations, survey, design work and stakeholder engagement have started, with site mobilisation and early works planned for the second quarter of 2019. The construction schedule is currently being developed and will be finalised once sufficient design has been completed.

However, you are right in saying that it is not listed in the Agency Statements for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. We might need to follow up on this one.

Cheers Norman, am just really hoping to see construction start soon lest this appears on the Libs' public transport cuts radar.

Not that I'm hoping for a direct link from my house to Pirate Life or anything...

Apparently Cory Bernardi is thinking about rejoining the Libs.

Hopefully they just "say no".

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:13 pm

Cheers Norman, am just really hoping to see construction start soon lest this appears on the Libs' public transport cuts radar.

Not that I'm hoping for a direct link from my house to Pirate Life or anything...

Of course not


So..was that a yes its already budgeted for previously or a yes its going ahead because thats what they said at the open day?
If its already budgeted for I doubt theyd cut it, theyd probably try lump it together with the gawler line work as proof they invest in PT if (or when) Labor attack them on PT at the next state election.

how good is he wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2019 6:42 pm

Yes interesting as I didn’t know the Govt didn’t own it already. Any idea who owns it at the moment?

See the quote from InDaily in Llessur2002's post. Funds SA is the successor to the South Australian Superannuation Fund Investment Trust.

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:21 pm

And some points from InDaily:

State Budget at a glance

COURTS

The State Government will spend more than $40 million on buying the Sir Samuel Way building in Victoria Square, eschewing fears of an unprecedented justice system budget cut.

Today’s state budget includes $43.5 million for the to buy the Sir Samuel Way Building, which houses the District Court, from Funds SA, ending the Courts Administration Authority’s obligation to pay rent on it.

According to the government, this will result in savings to the authority’s budget of $6 million each year.

From: https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/06/18/ ... -a-glance/

Question for those in the know.

Given what appears to be a gap between work finishing and starting on the North south corridor projects, will the various projects announced cover that workforce in the interim?

There seems to be a heap of intersection and level crossing work. But do the same firms tender for these?

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:13 pm

Cheers Norman, am just really hoping to see construction start soon lest this appears on the Libs' public transport cuts radar.

Not that I'm hoping for a direct link from my house to Pirate Life or anything...

Looks like I was very wrong on that one. Sorry about that.

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 pm

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:13 pm

Cheers Norman, am just really hoping to see construction start soon lest this appears on the Libs' public transport cuts radar.

Not that I'm hoping for a direct link from my house to Pirate Life or anything...

Looks like I was very wrong on that one. Sorry about that.

Did you speak to someone about it?

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:42 pm

Norman wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:34 pm

Llessur2002 wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:13 pm

Cheers Norman, am just really hoping to see construction start soon lest this appears on the Libs' public transport cuts radar.

Not that I'm hoping for a direct link from my house to Pirate Life or anything...

Looks like I was very wrong on that one. Sorry about that.

Did you speak to someone about it?

I tweeted some of the politicians and journalists yesterday about why the project was not in the budget, and today they released information about the "suspension" of the project.

As much as I'm frustrated by the Liberals' approach to infrastructure and transport, I do hope they hold course on removing land tax loopholes. Personally, I think we should be abolishing stamp duty and moving to a broad based land tax like the ACT. However, for the system we've got, it's certainly indefensible that people who own multiple properties pay less than those who own one. And when you hear the Property Council trotting out reductive lines about mum and dad investors, you know for sure those most affected will be big institutional investors (ie, the people who fund the Property Council). IMO, it should actually encourage more productive use of land rather than simple land banking (like, say, Polites and ADC). It's a shame that the media has used the backlash as its lens for reporting, rather than the inherent unfairness of the current policy (obviously people backlash when it costs them money, the important question is why). Bottom line, this state needs a more sustainable revenue base to build our future, and we can't afford loopholes ($40 million is not an insignificant amount). I hope Labor supports it too, rather than cynically opposing as the Liberals did to both the parking and bank levies during their government.

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 26, 2019 10:30 am

As much as I'm frustrated by the Liberals' approach to infrastructure and transport, I do hope they hold course on removing land tax loopholes. Personally, I think we should be abolishing stamp duty and moving to a broad based land tax like the ACT. However, for the system we've got, it's certainly indefensible that people who own multiple properties pay less than those who own one. And when you hear the Property Council trotting out reductive lines about mum and dad investors, you know for sure those most affected will be big institutional investors (ie, the people who fund the Property Council). IMO, it should actually encourage more productive use of land rather than simple land banking (like, say, Polites and ADC). It's a shame that the media has used the backlash as its lens for reporting, rather than the inherent unfairness of the current policy (obviously people backlash when it costs them money, the important question is why). Bottom line, this state needs a more sustainable revenue base to build our future, and we can't afford loopholes ($40 million is not an insignificant amount). I hope Labor supports it too, rather than cynically opposing as the Liberals did to both the parking and bank levies during their government.

Why should I pay more because I own multiple properties? Because I've worked hard and built my own wealth I should be punished and taxed heavier?
I'm a big institutional investor because I own more then one house?
There are more 'mum and dad' types who own two or three properties then people realize. That's the people who are impacted by these ridiculous levies and extra taxes, not the big players like Polites and Walker and whoever else.

You actually pay significantly more if you own multiple properties. Try the land tax calculator on the Revenue SA site.

2018/2019
Land tax on a single $450,000 home. $405
Land tax on two homes combined $900,000. $5219

2019/2020
Land tax on a single $450,000 home. $295
Land tax on two homes combined $900,000 value. $4661.

2011-2015
Land tax on a single $450,000 home. $670
Land tax on two homes combined $900,000 value.$7046

While it's coming down, it's a ridiculous amount to be paying because you own two houses. I own one house, I pay $295. If I own two, I should pay $590. Round it up to $600 if you like. And so on. Why punish people because they're smart enough with their money to own two or three properties?

Land tax is bullshit anyway. Just another cash grab by governments out of ideas on creating revenue through job & industry creation since globalization has taken away the majority of manufacturing and all the big factories with thousands of workers in each of them have been moved to the third world. Same goes for the Murry river "levy" they made us pay, and the Emergency Services Levy too. What the fuck do we pay taxes for to begin with? What are they doing with all the money, that they need to hit us up again and again with more taxes disguised as levies because they know the majority of people are too stupid to realize they being taxed more..

You can't keep taxing people heavier and heavier. Well maybe in Australia you can, considering how apathetic people are.


As always, looking forward to my usual legion of fans to get on and tell me I'm wrong.

Not really understanding your argument here rev...as you show, land tax is reducing for simple home owners - and let's face it, if you own more than one home then the additional ones are investment properties and no doubt those owners are making significant tax deductions & depreciation whilst generating some income and capital gains - simply a good wealth creation strategy if you get your numbers right. These investors also don't have the scale or legal/accountant teams to structure multiple ownership structures to avoid taxes (most anyways - no doubt some do).
The large corporates who this is aimed at are experts at avoiding taxes and yet take full advantage of any gov services and subsidies they can get. I support this measure - why should a corporate owning multiple properties pay less than a simple investor simply because they can target a loophole - the playing field isn't equal. They seem to make enough profit to spend up big trying to protect those profit margins.

The deductions arent as significant as some think.

The point is you have one house you pay $300 lets say.
How do they justify then charging you $4500 for two houses of similar value?

Yes its coming down, but that doesn't mean its at an acceptable level.
If you tax mum and dad investors, your ordinary hard working Australians who invest in a second property, where are rental properties going to come from?
The big players worth tens of millions or more will pick up the slack will they? There goes rental affordability.

Bur anyway, heres a good example of tax payers money being well spent..