The 'iconic site' argument is being pushed by Makris and by politicians to justify the decision.
What makes a site 'iconic'?
Considering that the developer (in the Le Cornu case) has simultaneously picked up around $10,000,000 in the value of his asset, should the priovate adjacent opwner be compensated, and if so by whom? Markis is only a beneficiary of the changeable planning system which has altered teh values of the various pieces of land.
So, should the govt be listening to the developer, or to the public? What rights does owning the land give Makris over a mere landless citizen? And what if the citizen owns an adjacent house?
rev wrote:Your theory that most Greeks vote Labor all the time, is bogus. Here is an example. The federal seat of Hindmarsh. A Labor MP, Greek background, contested that seat three elections in a row, before he won it. And Hindmarsh has a large Greek population. If your theory had any substance, he would have won it on the first attempt.
bmw boy wrote:I thought you worked for the DTEI chapsman?
not sure if this is correct, but from what i've gathered, doesn't it just mean instead of the council scrutinising the proposal, the government now has this job
Users browsing this forum: aeon and 2 guests